Re: IBM doesn't like the GPL

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > The process of static linking DOESN'T CREATE AN ORIGINAL WORK OF
>  > AUTHORSHIP (same as with dynamic linking).
> 
> You might wish to read the license before you begin shouting.
>      <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0>
>      "Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or
>      Object form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and
>      for which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations,
>      or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work
>      of authorship.
> 
> A program which links with Apache-licensed code is based on it,
> and the program as a whole will (generally) represent an original
> work of authorship.

LOL.

Hyman, let's try it slowly. Okay?

First off, a program which links with Apache-licensed code is NOT "based
on" Apache-licensed code (in a derivative work sense) as long as it
doesn't contain any protected material taken from Apache-licensed code.

Capice thus far?

Secondly, a copyright in a derivative work under 17 USC 103 (and its
author's ability to license derivative material on its own terms)
encompasses only new material which is "the editorial revisions,
annotations, elaborations, or other modifications[, which] represent, as
a whole, an original work of authorship".

Let's call that work 'B' and employed preexisting material 'A'. Okay?

Now, in the GNUish speak, "a whole" is A + B = D and a whole D is
purported to be licensed under the GPL.

But the Apache license doesn't allow that!

The Apache license says that only A can be licensed under the GPL (as
long as the GPL complies with the Apache license -- let's not go into
that).

What say you now Hyman?

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.)