Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs

[Alexander Terekhov]

telford@xenon.triode.net.au wrote:
[...]
> Thus correct gameplay for the FSF is to claim exactly as much as any other
> large copyright holder is claiming. 

Nobody in the software business (except SCO/"(FSF ^ SIGNBIT)"-parody, 
but they aren't really in the software business any more) is pushing 
the definition of "derivative work" to the utmost limit. Go read
creativecommons.org's share-alike licenses. Read also this:

http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:8400

<quote author=OSI's general counsel and secretary>

Let's be candid about what behavior we want to affect by our 
reciprocal licenses. I believe we want to make sure that changes, 
bug fixes and enhancements to our software are returned to the 
commons. But we don't want to discourage the use of our open 
source software in combination with other software, proprietary 
or open. By distinguishing between *derivative works* and 
*collective works* as the copyright law itself does, we can 
better achieve this balance.

The courts may ultimately make clearer the sorts of 
transformations of software that result in the creation of 
a derivative work. In the meantime, I have found no case that 
even suggests that the mere linking of one black-box program to 
another results in the creation of a derivative work of either. 
And why should it?

</quote>

Note that both GPL and LGPL are approved open-source licenses.

regards,
alexander.