Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote:
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 10:23 +0530, Biju Chacko wrote:
One of the biggest problems, as I see it, is that there is no clear
definition of what constitutes a derived work.
exactly. i should point out that the GPL very carefully avoids
specifying what a derivative work is, within the licence itself. the
question of whether aggretation, linking in some way, dependence in
different ways, etc, infringes on copyright (and is thus a derivative
work) is something the GPL leaves to copyright law.
this is deliberate, because it allows the GPL to be a licence (a
permissive grant) based only on copyright law, rather than a contract
(an agreement) based on contract law - at least in the US, where this
distinction works.
i guess this is one reason. another might be that if one would specify
in the gpl itself the relevant techniques as derivate / non-derivate,
one would get a problem when new forms of interaction will evolve. to
keep it generic provides the necessary flexibility for interpretation on
a case to case basis. this requires, however, an adequate understanding
of this particular technical subject matter the by the respective judge.
-b
