On 04/02/2013 11:38 PM, Anthonys Lists wrote: > On 02/04/2013 22:01, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: >> (Function names and APIs are generally considered to be uncopyrightable.) >> However, I think the consensus of opinion about free software licensing would >> be that, in distributing to you this little program, purely in source code >> form, not compiled or linked in any way, I am still obliged to offer it to >> you >> under licensing terms that are GPL-compatible, or else lose my right to use >> the GNU Scientific Library. > > You've just answered your own question. You have just said that this program > does NOT contain ANY copyrighted content from the gsl. > > As such, it is not a derivative work. That's what the law says. If the gsl > people want to stop you using their library, they need the law on their side.
My right to use the GNU Scientific Library is conditional on following certain obligations -- if I breach those obligations, I lose the right to use the GNU Scientific Library. One such obligation relates to the licensing that must be applied if I distribute any work that matches the GPL definition of a "covered work". It's no different in principle from what happens if I breach the terms of use of a proprietary program. My right to use the Flash plugin, for example, is conditional among other things upon my not trying to reverse-engineer it. Of course, in the case of the GNU Scientific Library, one way I could avoid violating the license would be to prepare a clean-room re-implementation of the library for use with my program. But in the absence of such a re-implementation, I think I'd reasonably be held in violation. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
