Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for December 5, 2013
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
The problem is that the combination of the licenses that cover a.php and b.php don't allow this derived work under either of them. This is very much not the case of two separate executables.
WordPress, themes, and derivative works
Posted Jul 29, 2010 22:36 UTC (Thu) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312)
The dubiousness of that proposition aside, any such combination by an end user would be explicitly legal under 17 USC 117(a). That includes _static_ linking if necessary.
"The problem is that the combination of the licenses that cover a.php and b.php don't allow this derived work under either of them."
It doesn't matter whether the licenses allow it or not. No one needs any kind of license to use something they have obtained a legitimate copy of. The only obvious way to defeat the fair use rights Congress clearly intended end users to have would be to have those who receive copies of open source software enter into valid contracts specifying otherwise.
Posted Jul 29, 2010 23:14 UTC (Thu) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841)
Similarly it is impossible to make practical use of a shared library without creating an executable that calls into it. But in neither case does this by itself create a derived work. I know that the FSF implies otherwise in justifying the existence of the LGPL, but that doesn't make them correct.
Posted Jul 29, 2010 23:56 UTC (Thu) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds