Brian Kimball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > (GPL, section 2): > > If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the > > Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate > > works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to > > those sections when you distribute them as separate works. > > Does US copyright law provide special legal definitions of 'independent' > and 'separate' or are these used in the technical sense of the words?
The GPL already tells you. It's appealing to the "reasonable man" test. > In other words, suppose I a) add a special switch to GNU's 'cp' that no > other 'cp' has, b) write a shell script that calls this 'cp' and uses > that switch, and then c) distribute the modified version of 'cp' and the > script together. Then my script would, technically speaking, be > dependent on the 'cp' that I distributed, which is GPLed. So if > 'independent' is used in the technical sense then my script would need > to be GPLed, I assume, even though it is solely my own work and is not a > derivate work of any GPLed program. I don't know what "technical" sense you mean. Your script is a derived work at that point, because of the modifications you made to cp; you have (depending on the details of the changes) perhaps created one larger program. The question is "would a reasonable man think they were independent or not?" Thomas
