[Paul TBBle Hampson] > This of course assumes the phrase "derived work" is legalese for > "code dependancy" or something. I'm sure the GPL actually defines > what _they_ mean by it... One false assumption and one false premise. "Derived work" is legalese for "this work is based, at least in part, on this other work". Roughly, "if it were not credited, this would be considered plagiarism." Nothing to do with "code dependencies" in particular. Now, the false premise is that it *matters* what the GPL means by "derived work". The GPL is a copyright license, so what actually matters is what copyright law defines as a derived work. For works that are (legally speaking) not derived from a GPL-licensed original, the GPL has no jurisdiction, no matter what it, or the author of your program, or the Free Software Foundation might say. I might add that claiming a program that uses a library's published API is a "derived work" is a bit shaky from the get-go. If you actually cut and paste code from the library into your program, it's a lot more clear-cut.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature