On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 09:31:37 -0700 (PDT) BRUCE STANLEY <bruce.stanley@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I keep seeing the term 'derived' used a lot in these GPL discussions. > > Hum, I'm not a lawyer, but as a computer programmer I fail to see how an > application program that I write could be considered a 'derived' work of > some generic support library that knows nothing of the logic of my > application program. > > Here is a dictionary definition definition of derived (I realize that lawyers can > ever pervert that): > > formed or developed from something else; not original; "the belief that classes > and organizations are secondary and derived"- John Dewey > wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn > > How could by application be derived by this definition? The library routine is > only there to do a function or to supply data that my program needs. > > My program is not formed from this GPL library in question. > Well it's really up to the lawyers to decide, so i can only speculate. It seems that in the case quoted by Les, the package was found to be a derivative work, legally. Sean -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
