<quote who="Benno"> > > What the FAQ doesn't talk about is how 'derivative work' would be > > regarded in terms of copyright, being based purely on technicalities to > > do with linking and such. The argument I'm making above (which I don't > > necessarily agree or disagree with, or support, etc) is that linking > > itself doesn't necessarily indicate a derivative work. It's all about > > 'modification' and 'editorialisation', 'translation', etc. > > And given this GPL is no stronger than the LGPL.
I think I provided enough context to ensure that this conclusion would be seen as fundamentally wrong. I'm not saying that the GPL's power is reduced across the board to that of the LGPL (which, in fact, contains a number of extra things not described in the GPL)... I'm saying: IN SOME CASES linking is not deriving (as one interpretation of copyright law might allow). - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2004: Adelaide, Australia http://lca2004.linux.org.au/ "A 'lame' server is a server that is SUPPOSED to be authoritative, but, when asked, says: 'Me? I know nothing, I'm from Madrid!'" - Ralf Hildebrandt -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
