I'd like to suggest that the first section of the license contain a complete set of terms and definitions for the rest of the document. Some of these are already present ("License" "You," and so forth), but the ones that aren't seems most important -- "Work" and "Derivative work."
The Work is defined in section 1.
The first time "derivative works" appears is in 4.(a) and it is not defined; it appears again in 4(b) chained to Work ("the Work and derivative works thereof"), but these terms are also not defined.
Then, in section 7, we get what looks like a definition of Derivative work, but I'm not sure that it extends to the earlier sections.
Hmm, indeed this is confusing -- it stems from a recent change from
"Derived Work" to "Derivative Work". A "derivative work" is defined
in US copyright law, but I am not sure about the laws of other countries.
That confusion is probably why the GPL uses "Derived Work".
It also wasn't clear to me whether compiled object code of unmodified source counts as a derivative work or not. Section 4 implies that it might be, but the definition in section 7 stipulates that you have modify the source to create a derivative work. So, I'm not clear on what this license says about non-source distribution.
Yes, that is a derivative work, and we need to be more clear about that if it isn't obvious from the text as is.
....Roy
