On Dec 7, 2003, at 17:07, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:Huh? Please, could someone please find the derivative works in the following, in chronological order:1. I create a program, Anthony's Foo Editor, and add a plugin API.I release my program under the MIT X11 license.2. Weston Manning (a new maintiner) uploads Anthony's Foo Editor asafe.3. Marc Spencer creates a plugin, Frobit, under the OpenSSL license4. Weston Manning uploads afe-frobit5. Duncan Finch creates a plugin, Barnitz, under the GPL, version 26. Weston Manning uploads afe-barnitzIf I understand the FSF correctly, they claim that a package containing both 'afe' and the 'barnitz' plugin is a derivative work of the 'barnitz' plugin.
No package containing both was created in the above!Even if one were, it'd be a compilation --- not a derivative work --- as there was no modification of either work. IOW, a mere aggregation.
And since the FSF's logic is "linking at runtime means derivative work before runtime", it follows that the bundle is a derivative work of the plugin.
That doesn't follow. If we assume linking at runtime means creating a derivative work before runtime, then we can conclude only that the plugin is a derivative work of the plugin host.
So, I must distribute the complete source code of the plugin available under terms compatible w/ the GPL. The X11 license is one such set of terms.
If I make a derivative work, app + plugin A, and a work, app + plugin B, then that doesn't show that A is a derivative of B or vice versa.
So A's license doesn't matter to B and vice versa, unless there is some other reason for them to be derivatives of each other.