Advertisement
Front, Kernel, Security, Distributions, Development. See your byline here on LWN.net.
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
IBM Memo has interesting implications for GPL interpretationIBM Memo has interesting implications for GPL interpretationPosted Aug 18, 2004 5:08 UTC (Wed) by ami.ganguli (guest, #9613)In reply to: IBM Memo has interesting implications for GPL interpretation by tbird20d Parent article: IBM's summary judgment motion
This has occurred to me as well. One thing to notice, however, is that not every GPL user believes this.
The bottom line is that the definition of 'derivative work' is a question of copyright law. Presumably it's easier to make the case that your work is not derivative if the binaries are not linked, but there may be cases where a separate binary _is_ derivative, and there may be cases where a linked binary is not derivative. It will depend on the specifics of the code and how the court interprets the situation.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||