Dear All,
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
boost (http://www.boost.org/) or even portions of GNU libstdc++?
http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg64361.php
http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg64381.php
http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg64388.php
boost-ly y'rs,
regards,
[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
I can only give you a partial non-legal answer/opinion: C++ template
definitions are equivalent to libraries as far as derivative work is
concerned. Using such template definitions is the same as using a
software library. In other words, there is nothing special about C++
template definitions
4 matches
Mail list logo
