Re: license question with non-GPL library

[Alexander Terekhov]

Merijn de Weerd wrote:

[... CONTAINS ***OR*** is DERIVED ...]

Hey Merijn, drop an email to Professor Determann.

http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf

he must be missing the true meaning of "contains" (vs "mere 
aggregate"). Same as the GPL author himself, by the way.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/01/1052216&mode=nocomment

"RMS: We have no say in what is considered a derivative work. That
 is a matter of copyright law, decided by courts. When copyright
 law holds that a certain thing is not a derivative of our work,
 then our license for that work does not apply to it. Whatever our
 licenses say, they are operative only for works that are
 derivative of our code.

 A license can say that we will treat a certain kind of work as if
 it were not derivative, even if the courts think it is. The Lesser
 GPL does this in certain cases, in effect declining to use some
 of the power that the courts would give us. But we cannot tell the
 courts to treat a certain kind of work as if it were derivative,
 if the courts think it is not." 

regards,
alexander.