[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit: > The OSI and FSF seem to have different ideas about what constitutes a > "derivative work" under GPL and would thus have to be licensed under > GPL as well. For example, Lawrence Rosen for OSI says that simply > combining something with the work isn't a derivative work
Larry speaks for himself at that point, not the OSI. (He also speaks for me, as it happens, but I have nothing to do with the OSI.) > whereas merely statically linking to a GPL library makes your work > GPL in the GPL FAQ That is official FSF policy, and FWIW the traditional interpretation in the community. But in the end it doesn't really matter what Eben thinks or Larry thinks or anyone except His Honor thinks. The term "derivative work" is a statutory term, but it's one that is *deliberately* kept only partially defined. In the event of a lawsuit for infringement, the court will have to decide on a case-by-case basis, and the result is unlikely to set any meaningful precedent, because it will depend heavily on the particular set of facts. Consequently, there is no right or wrong answer here. There is prudent advice, but that's all. My prudent advice is that it's never a good idea to antagonize the copyright owner if you can possibly help it. The statutory *penalties*, as opposed to the definition, of infringement are quite definite, and fearsome. (So is the price of lawyers.) -- All Gaul is divided into three parts: the part John Cowan that cooks with lard and goose fat, the part www.ccil.org/~cowan that cooks with olive oil, and the part that www.reutershealth.com cooks with butter. -- David Chessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
