On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 08:07:01PM -0400, MOB JUNKY wrote: > * Note that the GPL places important restrictions on "derived works", > yet * > * it does not provide a detailed definition of that term. To > avoid * > * misunderstandings, we consider an application to constitute > a * > * "derivative work" for the purpose of this license if it does any of > the *
As I understand it, "derivative work" is a specific legal term, defined by law, not individual licenses. > * o Integrates source code from > Nmap * > * o Links to a library or executes a program that does any of the > above * "Executes a program"? Is this claiming that bash and Linux are derivative works of nmap? > * We don't consider these to be added restrictions on top of the GPL, > but * > * just a clarification of how we interpret "derived works" as it > applies * > * to our GPL-licensed Nmap product. This is similar to the way > Linus * > * Torvalds has announced his interpretation of how "derived > works" * > * applies to Linux kernel modules. Our interpretation refers only As far as I know, Linus has no real standing to make such "interpretations"; I really wish people wouldn't use him as an example of how to handle legal issues, as he sets, as far as I can tell, a horribly bad example. -- Glenn Maynard