Re: IBM doesn't like the GPL

[Rjack]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:
>
> > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > GPLv3 is clear as mud. ...
>
> > It seems clear enough to me....
>
> > A program which is written to use a library is not a derivative
> > work of that library...
>
> I did not find the phrase "derivative work" in the GPL v3 text.
> I found it in v2, but you are discussing v3, are you not? If so,
> it would be better to stick to the language in GPL v3.

In any suit addressing copyright infringement the definition of
"derivative work" as stated in the Copyright Act is the only
relevant definition for determining what a derivative work is.

The FSF like Hyman, usually wants to redefine terms to fit their
conception of what things should mean.