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

Re: GPL for documentation ?

Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Gervase Markham wrote:

Don Armstrong wrote:

What about it? If the combination in question of the GPLed work and
your work is a derived work, then the GPL covers the work as a whole.

So is a WP a derived work of a dictionary? IMO, it's much harder to
make this sort of judgement when you're mixing code and non-code.

It's hard to make this judgement no matter what you're dealing with.

How would you make it in the case I outline?

There's nothing magical about non-programmatic langagues that makes
copyright law not apply.

Indeed not. But there is something about the concepts of "linking" and other software-oriented words the licence uses which make the judgement significantly harder in this case than others.

How does the distinction between the GPL and the LGPL apply to a
dictionary? Or are the two licences the same when you are talking
about something that can't in any meaningful sense be "linked"?

We're (or I am, at least) talking specifically about the GNU GPL here,
not the LGPL.

Indeed - but I was saying "are you saying the GPL and LGPL are equivalent for this particular sort of work?"


Reply to: