On 6/27/2011 12:58 PM, Paul J Stevens wrote:
Your address suggests english is your native language.
Yes.
But 'derivative' really is an english word right? And Cédric did provide
links to it's particular meaning in the context of software licenses.
Yes. I noted the contradiction with the other provided article.
The way the word 'derivative' is used in this context is not consistent with
its normal english usage. Derived means "made from", not "makes use of" or
"works with". It is also, IMHO, not consistent with its definition in US
Copyright law which is where it was apparently taken from.
The article linked by Cédric says the authors use an "expansive" definition. A
cynic would say they have co-opted the term, changed its meaning, and thereby
made the word of no use. In any case, my university dictionary seems no help.
If you use Tryton (program or code) you are free to do so.
If you modify and/or extend Tryton you are free to do so.
Understood.
If you modify and/or extend Tryton *and* want to publish the result you
must include the full source code including your changes under GPLv3 -
but only if your modifications comprise a 'derived work'.
Understood.
Uh, but if I write a program that calls a method inside Tryton does this
constitute "modify and/or extend"?
If you build and publish a module that is 'original work' (not derived
from, or based on existing code for which you don't hold any copyright)
you are free to apply any license you prefer.
This all seems reasonable. (Except for the obvious confusion in what it means
to be 'derived from'.)
But note that it seems quite different from what Cédric said earlier: "If they
are distributed together yes." That seems to refer mostly to an issue of
packaging. So if I can find a clever way to not package them together while yet
making heavy use of the GPL program I'd be in compliance?
You are most emphatically not required to publish. Anything. Ever.
Period. But note that building and selling an appliance that runs Tryton
most definitely implies publication.
As long as you use your code for in-house applications there is simply
no issue.
Understood.
And it really will help to actually read GPLv3 ...
Not likely. Given that that attorneys, courts, and even most of the people who
argue for or against the GPL don't understand it, I probably won't succeed
where they all seem to fail. But I suppose the effort would be educational.
Thanks,
Michael
--
[email protected] mailing list
