[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: license questions.

On Monday 07 October 2002 13:37, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Auke Jilderda <auke@jilderda.net> writes:
> > - First, the boundaries of the GPL are unclear.  Exactly what does the
> >   term "derived work" mean, does the license propagate across static
> >   linking, dynamic linking, IPC, or even socket communication?  This
> >   unclarity is a risk for companies and, consequently, they take a
> >   cautious approach, staying on the safe side by not linking their
> >   proprietary software (that contains their business value) to GPL
> >   software.  In other words, the unclarity in the GPL license causes
> >   that software to be used a bit less than had it been clear about its
> >   boundaries.
> "Derived work" is a well-established term in copyright law.  The
> reason the GPL doesn't give a local definition is because it reaches
> exactly as far as the normal meaning of a derived work.  The
> boundaries of what is a derived work are *exactly* the same,
> therefore, as for any other copyright program.

       It's well-established, but that doesn't mean it's well-defined.  The
edges are defined only by litigation, and sometimes redefined by litigation.
Hence the boundaries of the GPL are unclear (and you subsequently
noted a case (patches) where that ambiguity exists).


Reply to: