Re: "Adobe Open Source License" GPL compatible?

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 10:57 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> > First sale aside for a moment, GPL is a bare copyright license. When
>> > you merely "combine" works, you create compilations, not derivative
>> > works. The former is also known as "mere aggregation." Got it now?
>> 
>> Well, apart from the fact that there is no "combining" but
>> combining, one should take in account that while in combining you
>> are just combining, when you build upon an existing work (aka use a
>> library) you're making a derivate.
>
> In a metaphysical sense, all works are derivatives. But under
> copyright law (apart from the GNU Republic), exclusive right to
> prepare derivative works doesn't cover compilations. Go read the
> legal code, stupid.

You are a bit confused.  The question is not whether the whole
compilation is a derivative work of its components: it most certainly
is.  The question is whether the derived part can be considered
restricted to the GPLed component, namely that the non-GPLed component
is not affected by derivation.  For a published API with competing
implementations, this won't usually be the case, making the GPL
effectively LGPL.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum