207 reputation
16
bio website freealgview.blogspot.com
location
age
visits member for 1 year, 10 months
seen Jul 22 at 20:05

Nov
13
awarded  Yearling
Dec
11
asked Design pattern for isomorphic trees
Nov
20
revised LL(∞) and left-recursion
Redefine first question.
Nov
20
awarded  Commentator
Nov
20
revised LL(∞) and left-recursion
added 95 characters in body
Nov
20
asked LL(∞) and left-recursion
Nov
14
awarded  Nice Question
Nov
14
comment Automatic generate code: “derived work”?
From the GNU FAQ; about the "output" of a software (speaking from memory): if the output of software "copy" content from the software itself (for example, software copies its own source code to the output), the output of a software is licensed by the same terms the software itself. In this case, Doxygen copy part of itself to the output: the HTML macros to generate a webpage (o latex code, etcétera). But Doxygen states: "Documents produced by doxygen are derivative works derived from the input used in their production; they are not affected by this license". Thus, there isn't problems here.
Nov
14
comment Automatic generate code: “derived work”?
@DavidSchwartz The HTML output has the creative elements of the Doxygen authors (its HTML). This can't be an aggregate because it is impossible to separate in insolated "the two works aggregated".
Nov
14
comment Automatic generate code: “derived work”?
@DavidSchwartz That means if you automatically generates an PDF ("the output") from my LaTeX source code ("the work"), this output is mine, and you have the same rights over this output I gave you when you receive my work. Right? Thus, if you want redistribute the output, you must redistribute it with the same conditions the work license say you. But the output have a CC-BY-SA license (because the work produces the output so). And this is a contradiction, or not?
Nov
14
comment Automatic generate code: “derived work”?
I have just seen in the (spanish) Wikipedia, at least in Spain, that a transformation purely mechanic isn't a derivate work, but a reproduction.
Nov
14
comment Automatic generate code: “derived work”?
The whole problem is there isn't a (libre) license applicable to works compose by elements with different nature. GPL seems to be designed for pure-code software, forgotting other not-source-code elements integrated in software.
Nov
14
comment Automatic generate code: “derived work”?
I understand the first part (the input is a original creative element), but I don't see the relation between your divided book and the actual issue.
Nov
14
comment Automatic generate code: “derived work”?
But, if a direct recipient remove this clause, and he distributes it other time, a "third-level" recipient have the same legal problem.
Nov
14
comment Automatic generate code: “derived work”?
Then, for which reason Flex/Bison copy in its automatic outputs (from files with grammar descriptions) an license statement? If these outputs aren't "works" (and thus, nor derivated works), it have no sense these legal clauses. The same can be said for .sty files automaticly generated from .dtx and .ins packages?
Nov
14
awarded  Editor
Nov
14
revised Automatic generate code: “derived work”?
deleted 2 characters in body
Nov
14
awarded  Supporter
Nov
14
awarded  Scholar
Nov
14
comment Automatic generate code: “derived work”?
Thank you very much. But, related to this section 7, I don't understand exactly with types of additional permissions can be removed by recipients.