Re: GPL: meaning of "independent and separate works"

[tb@MIT.EDU (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

Brian Kimball <bfk@footbag.org> writes:

> Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> 
> > The GPL already tells you.  It's appealing to the "reasonable man"
> > test.
> 
> So even if a work distributed with the modified Program is not a
> derivative work of the Program, it must be GPLed if the work DEPENDs on
> the Program to run (a situation I tried but failed to create in my
> example)?  I'm a reasonable guy and that's how I read it. :-)

It depends on what kind of dependency is involved.  Is it so tight a
coupling that they are one program, who parts are useful only when
tied together?  Or not?  It's human-level distinction, not a techincal
one. 

Thomas