Auke Jilderda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > - First, the boundaries of the GPL are unclear. Exactly what does the > term "derived work" mean, does the license propagate across static > linking, dynamic linking, IPC, or even socket communication? This > unclarity is a risk for companies and, consequently, they take a > cautious approach, staying on the safe side by not linking their > proprietary software (that contains their business value) to GPL > software. In other words, the unclarity in the GPL license causes > that software to be used a bit less than had it been clear about its > boundaries.
"Derived work" is a well-established term in copyright law. The reason the GPL doesn't give a local definition is because it reaches exactly as far as the normal meaning of a derived work. The boundaries of what is a derived work are *exactly* the same, therefore, as for any other copyright program.
