Re: [boost] Re: License Conversion Update: Graph library incompatw/GPL

From: Walter Landry (wlandry_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-06 07:09:45

Argh.  I really didn't want this to become a licensing argument.

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
> Walter Landry wrote:
> [...]
> > The GPL has very clear terms for how I can make copies of derived
> > works.  One of those terms is that the complete derived work doesn't
> > have any additional restrictions above what the GPL has.
> 
> You don't seem to grasp the meaning of derivative work under the
> copyright law. A compilation is not a derivative work.  Legally,
> compiled and linked binary is just another form of the corresponding
> complete source tarball (or whatever). Library dependency doesn't
> make dependent code derivative of the libary code no matter whether
> that library is some template stuff or not. Use of templates and/or
> static/dynamic linking does not constitues creation of derivative
> work. The resulting aggregation is a compilation with respect to its
> components, not a derivative. Mere aggregation, you know.

This is more than just compilation.  I am taking pieces of a GPL'd
work and pieces of the Graph library to create a combined work (the
binary).  The code gets all mixed together in the binary.  This is
especially evident with template code.

> regards,
> alexander.
> 
> --
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/125_F3d_580.htm

The referenced case doesn't involve making copies, and turns on the
particulars of visual art.  You would have a point if I said that
moving the code from a CD to a usb key made a derivative work.

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry_at_[hidden]