Re: Plugins, libraries, licenses and Debian

[bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen)]

mru@kth.se (Måns Rullgård) writes:

> Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> writes:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 03:31:40PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>>> All that seems rather obvious to me, so why write it down?  Would
>>> there be another possible interpretation otherwise?  If that's the
>>> case, why not mention programs that allow only one specified version?
>>
>> In law, anything which is not written down is neither obvious nor
>> true. That's how contracts and licenses have always worked.
>
> I know that is how law works.  I just find it strange, that the GPL is
> so explicit on this point, and yet doesn't bother to clarify at all
> what a "derived work" might be, just to take an example.  Maybe it was
> because the author himself actually could figure out the bit about the
> license version, but didn't more of a clue than anyone else about the
> parts that really matter.  Then again, maybe there was some other
> reason.

No, that's because the GPL is designed to work well in a variety of
legal climates, and each different jurisdiction spells out the
definition of "Derived Work" in its own legal code.  I think you might
get more insight into the whys and wherefores of the GPL and software
licensing in general if you began by looking for an answer, instead of
guessing at one.

-Brian

-- 
Brian T. Sniffen                                        bts@alum.mit.edu
                       http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/