In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ciaran O'Riordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > FSF's position, IIRC, IANAL, is that being a derived work is something that > is decided based on the author's actions and intentions at the time of > writing the software - not at the later times of someone running or linking > the software.
If by "derived work" they really mean "derivative work", then the case law is pretty much directly opposed to the FSF's opinions. And there is a LOT of case law in this area, because in the world of commercial software, this fact pattern arises any time some third party makes an add-on for a closed system without permission of the vendor of the closed system. -- --Tim Smith _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
