multiboot.h license

[Combuster]

You are however including multiboot.h verbatim.

I disagree. You are including the statement "#include <multiboot.h>" verbatim.

I call a troll. Have fun.

[Antti]

That is one thing we can be absolutely sure makes no difference whatsoever.

Where that absolutely comes from? If I wrote a program that uses a header file implementing some standard interface that is not covered by the license and I released the program as a source code package, how would I know how end users are compiling it? Are they using some public domain implementation of the header or some proprietary implementation of the header? If I distributed the header within the source code package, then I would absolutely know the license. I only want to say that it has a slight difference. Perhaps irrelevant in this case.

the latest version of the file is not GPL, so this whole discussion is of even less relevance

Actually, now it seems that there really were some problems before. Why they changed it?

[Antti]

Someone recently made the claim that including a header file always makes a derivative work.

That's not the FSF's view. Our view is that just using structure definitions, typedefs, enumeration constants, macros with simple bodies, etc., is NOT enough to make a derivative work. It would take a substantial amount of code (coming from inline functions or macros with substantial bodies) to do that.

Is this the opinion we are referring to?

[iansjack]

Why they changed it?

That seems fairly obvious. They changed it to avoid nitpickers starting the sort of silly discussion that ends up with people being called Trolls for supporting a common sense interpretation of the GPL.

Why they changed it is irrelevant; the simple fact is that they did and so the whole premise on which this discussion is based is false.