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.
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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk