Re: GPL and linking
On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> You can't re-state something saying a different thing. GPL#0 says
> that "a work based on the Program" is "a derivative work under
> copyright law", and then says "that is to say, a work
> containing...", which is NOT a re-statement of a "derivative work
> under copyright law".
That's another re-statement of what "a work based on the Program"
> Yes and no. The GPL is the authoritative document on whatever it
> wants to define and whatever it CAN define (the GPL CANNOT define
> what is "a derivative work under copyright law", for instance)...
> but IF AND ONLY IF it defines it without ambiguity.
The GPL is not defining what a derivative work under copyright law
means. It's defining what a "work based on the Program" means.
> What the GPL actually does is defining a cat this way: '' a cat is
> the animal on the page 3 of the Domestic Pets Handbook, that is to
> say, an animal with four legs and whiskers. ''. Does this defines
> all animals with four legs and whiskers as being cats?
Not actually. Cats are outside the scope of copyright law.