Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL

[Anthonys Lists]

On 02/04/2013 15:19, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 04/02/2013 03:52 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> > >The main difference is "work as a whole" vs "mere aggregation".  If you
> > >include some file as a form of invoking its documented interface, you
> > >form no new combined work.
> Indeed, which if I recall right is how Google was able to provide non-GPL'd
> header files describing the Linux kernel API for use in Android.  (If I'm wrong,
> let's not get into the reasons why -- it's another huge can of worms...:-)
I suspect you recall wrongly.

It is widely accepted (and quite probably in this particular case 
explicitly stated) that header files are not copyrightable subject matter.

Certainly it is explicitly stated that using *published* API interfaces 
to linux does NOT create a derivative work.

So as long as Google stuck to using interfaces that the kernel devs 
explicitly published to user space, then using those header files 
EXPLICITLY does NOT create a derivative work, and therefore the GPL can 
NOT cross that boundary.

Cheers,
Wol