On 04/02/2013 11:28 PM, Anthonys Lists wrote: > A derivative work is whatever the LAW says it is (whatever that is :-). NO > open > source licence defines the term "derivative work", although they may give > their > own interpretation of what they think it is.
The actual GPL term is a "covered work", and is specified reasonably precisely. My little program calls functions from an explicitly GPL-licensed library -- not from an API with multiple different implementations -- ergo, it's based on a GPL-licensed work and is a "covered work" in the terms of the GPL. > The whole point of open source licences is they are LICENCES. They GRANT > PERMISSIONS. Indeed, and a consequence of distributing a "covered work" under GPL-incompatible terms is that you lose the permissions granted under that license. So, if I'd tried to put a proprietary license on that bit of C code I shared, for example, I'd have been violating the terms of the permissions granted me on the GNU Scientific Library; so I'd have lost my right to use the GNU Scientific Library; and if I continued to use it, I could be sued for using copyrighted software without permission. _That's_ where issues of copyright violation come in, not in the question of whether my piece of code is strictly derivative in the sense of copyright law. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
