Re: Question About GNU General Public License

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> > 
> > Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
> > 
> > > Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > Then why doesn't the program fullfil its purpose without the
> > > > library, either at compile time or at run time?
> > >
> > > I'm tired of you. Copyright law doesn't care whether it does
> > > "fulfill its purpose" or does not. And it cares neither about
> > > "compile time" nor about "run time". Section 101 of the United
> > > States Copyright Act defines a "computer program" as "a set of
> > > statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in
> > > a computer in order to bring about a certain result."
> > 
> > How can it bring about a certain result if required libraries are
> > missing?
> 
> My, you're dumb.

Your standard way of saying "I am running out of arguments".

> Each "statements or instruction" has a functional specification that
> defines what shall be done (preconditions, effect, postcondition,
> failure modes/"throws", etc.). The end result is certain. How can
> you verify a program without libraries?
> 
> Some people can.

And that means you can do without the libraries when trying "to bring
about a certain result"?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum