Stay away from the [L]GPL (aka All Your Base Are Belong To GNU) and stick to something non-idiotic like the CPL or (its derivative with minor modification regarding patent retaliation) EPL.
http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php ---- 21. If I write a module to add to a Program licensed under the EPL and distribute the object code of the module along with the rest of the Program, must I make the source code to my module available in accordance with the terms of the EPL? No, as long as the module is not a derivative work of the Program. [...] 26. Some free software communities say that linking to their code automatically means that your program is a derivative work. Is this the position of the Eclipse Foundation? No, the Eclipse Foundation interprets the term "derivative work" in a way that is consistent with the definition in the U.S. Copyright Act, as applicable to computer software. Therefore, linking to Eclipse code might or might not create a derivative work, depending on all of the other facts and circumstances. 27. I"m a programmer not a lawyer, can you give me a clear cut example of when something is or is not a derivative work? If you have made a copy of existing Eclipse code and made a few minor revisions to it, that is a derivative work. If you"ve written your own Eclipse plug-in with 100% your own code to implement functionality not currently in Eclipse, then it is not a derivative work. Scenarios between those two extremes will require you to seek the advice of your own legal counsel in deciding whether your program constitutes a derivative work. ---- #27's "scenarios between those two extremes" is about the AFC test. http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise22.html Then go here: http://www.innovationlaw.org/userfiles/page_attachments/Library/1/Heer_nonliteral_728806.pdf Hth. regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
