Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)

[Alexander Terekhov]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
[...]
>    But once again: beware of eventual copyright impotence (penalty for
>    copyright misuse) though. Your GPL'd code may well end up in quasi
>    public domain. Apart from antitrust, see
>    http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-March/004248.html
> 
> As Rui Miguel Silva Seabra pointed out, Alexander likes to quote
> himself as if it makes his wrong advice more correct.

I'm the author of 

  P.S. So you better stick to the CPL (or things like the
  OSL) for "grantback" licensing. Just a friendly advice.

fragment. The rest of creative content in that message mine was 
authored by Nicolas Boulay and Christian H. Nadan, the author of 
"A Proposal to Recognize Component Works: How a Teddy Bears on 
the Competing Ends of Copyright Law" cited in LEWIS GALOOB TOYS, 
INC. v. NINTENDO OF AMERICA, INC. when the Judges ruled that 

<quote>

Some time ago, for example, computer companies began marketing
spell-checkers that operate within existing word processors by
signalling the writer when a word is misspelled.   These
applications, as well as countless others, could not be produced
and marketed if courts were to conclude that the word processor
and spell-checker combination is a derivative work based on the
word processor alone.   The Game Genie is useless by itself, it
can only enhance, and cannot duplicate or recaste, a Nintendo
game[... "output" ...] nor does it supplant demand for Nintendo
game cartridges.   Such innovations rarely will constitute
infringing derivative works under the Copyright Act. See
generally Nadan, supra, at 1667-72.

</quote> 

regards,
alexander.