On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Artovil wrote: > So, I am safe if I just distribute a patch file that only includes modified > CircleMUD code that calls the functions found in the MySQL C API? Id est, > as long as I don't include any of the files from the MySQL API, right? So, > I could just write a detailed description of how to add the proper inlcude > path to the Makefile as well as other options that might be necessary, right? > > Regards, > /Artovil If you wrote the function calls out yourself, then the code itself that you wrote uh wasn't copied.. for copyright to matter you actually have to be copying something or another. Using the name of a function defined by an API is probably not too much if any of a problem. You probably have no issues provided you're not making a binary distribution or including code written by someone else. - If you put out a patch, you probably wind up with bits and pieces of circlemud in the patch. That should be ok provided either (1) You don't also wind up with bits and pieces of GPL code, or (2) All the bits and pieces are written by you [as the author of modifications, you can license those modifications as you like unless circle made you sign an agreement preventing it which they didn't btw] - As a matter of fair use, it is at least widely noted that software licenses cannot control what you can do with software once you get it. Although neither the GPL nor the click-wrap- license-software people would prefer that be known, both [in my opinion] operate successfully through scare tactics. That is, even if the author wants it to, or even if the authors of the GPL wanted it to, they couldn't force you to 'never connect your GPL stuff with non-GPL-stuff', for example, because copyright only governs well, copy and publishing, moreover -- that fair use doctrine stuff ensures your end-user's rights to among things, their right to make a copy for their own use (IOW - copyright protects the right to copy -and- distribute) and use their legally-possessed copyright material however they please (so, for example, it's perfectly fine to make a copy of a CD you own for example provided your copy only for personal use, though in the future the DMCA may make it impossible to exercise those rights -- gettin' a lil offtopic here). Only way for the author of GPL'd code to stop that would be essentially to force all users to sign a contract prior to legally attaining a copy of the package, since once the user legally has the package they have the right to use and copy it for their personal use and can't be forced to agree to any contract <G>. - This is perhaps why end-user software EULAs "Point and click to accept" agreements that try to govern your use of the software or prevent you from *gasp* reverse-engineering it have in the past failed... unfortunately, now, we have the DMCA which specifically forbids reverse-engineering and does a bunch of other stuff that I don't know about, and UCITA which could actually turn those shrink-wrap licenses into contracts if you accept them (Even you've already bought the software, they might be able to force you into more contracts before you can actually use it), ugh... I can see it now... "Install: By clicking accept you your soul is now the exclusive property of <inser large SW company here>. Accepting is easy, just click accept, accept below, turn off your computer, press the X above, hit control+alt+del, pull the plug, or press any key." " [ Accept ] [ Accept ] " -Mysid the cynic -- +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | FAQ: http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html | | Archives: http://post.queensu.ca/listserv/wwwarch/circle.html | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/06/01 PST