Rahul Dhesi wrote:
***NEITHER GPL V2 NOR GPL V3 MENTIONS DERIVATIVE WORKS.***
However, it does appear that the FSF believes that a program written to interoperate with another program is somehow tied sufficiently to that other program such that if the other is GPLed then the whole program is bound by the GPL. For example, here is part of a header comment that the FSF suggests putting into files: <http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html> Linking [name of your program] statically or dynamically with other modules is making a combined work based on [name of your program]. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole combination. On what basis is a program which links dynamically to a library a combined work such that the program would be subject to the GPL if the library is? When you copy or distribute the program, you do not necessarily distribute the library - that is part of the point of dynamic linking. It's an odd sort of combined work which does not include the thing with which it is alleged to be combined! Thus, I have seen arguments instead that the program is a derivative work of the library. That's why derivative works come up in the discussion. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
