MS Office on Linux 14768
 |
Ray Ingles "Distributing" meant burning the tables into their ROMs to use in their hardware. That's hardly a "distribution" in the sense that software is ordinarily considered. Their specific adaption would be...
Ray Ingles You seem to have missed the point of the point, Ray! It said in full:
"1) The primary indication of whether a new program is a derivative work is whether the source code of the original program was used, modified, translated or otherwise changed in any way to create the new program. If not, then I would argue that it is not a derivative work."
Since it is not a derivative work, all I need to do to satisfy the GPL is to administratively disclose the original source and license, since I used it without modification. From all indications, that is what the companies who were "caught" using the ipfilter tables were required to do. That seems a little lame and shows that the authors are more concerned with their egos than with substantively making the network environment consistent to the benefit of all.
Getting the companies to abide by the terms of the GPL. That violates the license. And yes, they did modify things to get them to work on...
You missed the context of the cite, IMO, Ray. Your original cite regarding the CA case contained, on the next page of HTML, a description of a "filter" method that could be used by the court to decide if something had copied any protected expression of a work. The test throws away a variety of ineligible text so that the remainder can be examined more closely without distraction from the technically ineligible parts. It's complex and confusing but says nothing directly about my thesis.