Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
On 7/26/05, Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> wrote:
[snip]
> A compilation or collective work under US law is not necessarily a
> derivative work of any of its components. The GPL's use of
> "derivative" and "derived" is fuzzy in this sense, which is one reason
> the terms from copyright law are used more often than the GPL's terms.
Almost -- a compilation or collective work is almost _never_ a
derivative work of any of its components. The GPL drafter just plain
got it wrong in Section 0, and the legal definition in 17 USC 101 (and
its parallels in other Berne Convention countries) overrides the GPL's
incorrect paraphrase. Extensively discussed on debian-legal in the
last few months (disclaimer: only those few d-l participants with
actual legal credentials seem to agree with me); you might start at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/07/msg00336.html .
Cheers,
- Michael
(IANAL, TINLA)
Reply to: