On 04/02/2013 11:28 PM, Anthonys Lists wrote:
A derivative work is whatever the LAW says it is (whatever that is :-). NO open
source licence defines the term "derivative work", although they may give their
own interpretation of what they think it is.
The actual GPL term is a "covered work", and is specified reasonably precisely.
My little program calls functions from an explicitly GPL-licensed library -- not
from an API with multiple different implementations -- ergo, it's based on a
GPL-licensed work and is a "covered work" in the terms of the GPL.
The whole point of open source licences is they are LICENCES. They GRANT
PERMISSIONS.
Indeed, and a consequence of distributing a "covered work" under
GPL-incompatible terms is that you lose the permissions granted under that
license.
So, if I'd tried to put a proprietary license on that bit of C code I shared,
for example, I'd have been violating the terms of the permissions granted me on
the GNU Scientific Library; so I'd have lost my right to use the GNU Scientific
Library; and if I continued to use it, I could be sued for using copyrighted
software without permission.
_That's_ where issues of copyright violation come in, not in the question of
whether my piece of code is strictly derivative in the sense of copyright law.