Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[Hyman Rosen]

David Kastrup wrote:
> You got a bad case of slandries.

From <http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080909014304275>,
quoting from the decision:

    By condensing, synthesizing, and reorganizing the preexisting
    material in an A-to-Z reference guide, the Lexicon does not
    recast the material in another medium to retell the story of
    Harry Potter, but instead gives the copyrighted material another
    purpose. That purpose is to give the reader a ready understanding
    of individual elements in the elaborate world of Harry Potter
    that appear in voluminous and diverse sources. As a result, the
    Lexicon no longer "represents [the] original work[s] of
    authorship." 17 U.S.C. § 101. Under these circumstances, and
    because the Lexicon does not fall under any example of derivative
    works listed in the statute, Plaintiffs have failed to show that
    the Lexicon is a derivative work.

Look at this, and then tell me that a court will find that a program
which dynamically links to a library is a derivative work of that
library.