Sorry if this gets in after the fact. I'm replying offline...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Artovil" <artovil@ARCANEREALMS.ORG>
> 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?
All standard disclaimers notwithstanding (I am not a lawyer, etc), most of
the time simple common sense applies. If you feel like you are stealing
someone's copyrighted code, you probably are. If you refer to a few lines
out of a large function, or just the names of API's, you probably aren't.
It's not really possible to enforce a license that covers _every_ line of
code, or none of us could use:
int i;
If you paste in a few lines from a big function, no problem. If you start
swiping whole functions, you might want to reconsider. That is a subjective
matter, too. What if the function you steal is:
int square(int x, int y) { return x * y; }
It's pretty hard to claim intellectual property on that. For what you're
talking about...writing a patch that refers to two different codebases that
are licensed differently, I doubt you'll run into any issues.
Mike
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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