Re: gperf output licence

[Bruno Haible]

Paul Jarc wrote:
> For gperf's input files, it seems unlikely that
> there would be any examples.  But if I were writing the documentation,
> I wouldn't want to give the impression that, as a general matter of
> copyright law, derivative works a) are always allowed and b) always
> inherit the license of the original work.  I'd probably say something
> like:
> 
>   On the other hand, the output produced by gperf contains essentially
>   all of the input file.  Therefore the output is a derivative work of
>   the input that was passed to gperf, and its copyright and license
>   status depend on the copyright and license of the input.

OK, I'm changing the paragraph to say this:

   On the other hand, the output produced by gperf contains
   essentially all of the input file.  Therefore the output is a
   "derivative work" of the input (in the sense of U.S. copyright law);
   and its copyright status depends on the copyright of the input.  For most
   software licenses, the result is that the the output is under the same
   license, with the same copyright holder, as the input that was passed to
   gperf.

Bruno