From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman)
To: congrunt!artk@eddie.mit.edu
Cc: meissner@osf.org, gas2@cygnus.COM, bfd@cygnus.COM
Subject: Re: Elfdump
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 1994 08:41:00 -0000
Message-id: <9411121641.AA25070@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
References: <9411112248.AA18043@Congruent.COM>
X-SW-Source: 1994/msg00198.html

    >   Date: Fri, 11 Nov 94 16:41:59 -0500
    >   From: rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman)
    >
    >	* fee, provided that the above copyright notice appears in all copies and
    >	* that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
    >	* supporting documentation.
    >
    >   Requirements like this about supporting documentation are somewhat
    >   obnoxious -- as well as legally unenforceable in the US from what I've
    >   heard -- because they impose a requirement on separate and independent
    >   works.

      Is a binary that comes from your source code a separate work?  

No, but I don't follow the point.  The issue I'm talking about has to
do with documentation, not binaries.