Re: Licensing issues with a research project

[Alexander Terekhov]

Tassilo Horn wrote:

[... GNUtian dak's blathering ...]

> Well, it seems there's more than plain aggregation.  For example there
> are classes in the EPL-licensed core that extend classes of our GPLed
> library.

That constitutes a derivative work only in the GNU Republic in the
nearby alternative universe.

As for our reality, see

http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise22.html
(III.B. Abstraction, Filtration, Comparison)

http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise27.html
(VI.D.4. Derivative Works and Compilations)

"Some have claimed that an application program that needs a library for
its operation is a derivative work of that library. They take that
position because the application program is “based on” the library
because it was written to use the subroutines and other aspects of the
library.

Such a position is misplaced. 

. . .

It could be argued that the component program really does include
portions of the library that it uses – data structures that are passed
as parameters, or even the parameter lists themselves. But elements
dictated by external considerations are filtered out when trying to
determine whether there is copyright infringement.

No other conclusion makes sense. If it were not the case, then any
program using the applications program interfaces (APIs) of an operating
system could be considered a derivative work of that operating system.
And, under the exclusive right to prepare derivative works, the
copyright owner of an operating system such as Microsoft Windows could
control who was allowed to write programs for that operating system."

regards, 
alexander. 

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)