Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs

[Isaac]

On 11 Jul 2004 01:33:57 +0200, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
> 
>> Martin Dickopp wrote:
>> [...]
>> > library.  An example of this case is the C++ standard library, because
>> > large parts of it consist of inline functions in header files.
>> 
>> Use of C++-templates/inlines/macros is the same as static linking of 
>> object files (or creating lib archive). Resulting executable (or 
>> whatever "container"/"assembly" is a compilation, not a derivative.
> 
> You are aware that the legal term "compilation" means something
> completely different from the computer term "compilation"?
> 

Yes, but even so, I think he is likely correct.  I think a linked executable
is probably some type of collective work, most likely a compilation which
includes the library rather than a derivative work based on the library.
It certainly seems a closer fit based on the definitions in the code.

But I cannot rule out the possibility that a court might consider it
a derivative work simply because it is not perfectly clear what the
phrase "based on" means.

Isaac