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

Re: GPL and linking (was: Urgently need GPL compatible libsnmp5-dev replacement :-()

On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards <m.k.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh Lord.  Deep breath.  Please, please, please read to the end of this
> one before responding to each line on the fly.


> The GPL contains one, and only one, _definition_ of the phrase "work
> based on the Program".  (The word Program, capitalized, is defined
> previously.)  That _definition_, in its entirety, is:
> <definition>
> a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any
> derivative work under copyright law
> </definition>

I disagree.  You know I disagree.  

I believe the definition continues until the end of that sentence.

> This definition emphasizes that "derivative work", which is in any
> case a phrase with a defined legal meaning, is to have its meaning
> under copyright law in the applicable jurisdiction and _no_other_.
> Each and every time the phrase "work[s] based on the Program" appears
> in the text of the GPL, it means this and only this.

That's an assertion.

You've not presented any examples where this oh-so-important
assertion of yours makes any difference.

Oh, and I understand the grammar.

> The GPL contains, in the same sentence, a pair of noun clauses, placed
> in apposition, with unambiguous syntactical markers (a colon and the
> adverbial phrase "that is to say") indicating that the second noun
> clause is an attempt to paraphrase the first.

indicates the meaning of this phrase is:  "namely: as follows" 

In other words, a reasonable person could assume that this part of
the definition is more specific about what "work based on the Program"
means than the preceding part.

I see no basis here for assuming that the GPL is incorrect about
what it says.


Reply to: