> > However, the license for that derived work (I'll call it A) claims > > that the whole of A must be GPL'd. However, Qt is not part of A (the > > GPL says "section of"). Qt provides services to A, and A depends on > > those services: A very different thing. > > Qt is part of the derived work. It is linked to it and the work A does not > function without it. It is also not a public API and your message to Preston > concerning possible legal action against harmony makes it clear you regard > the item as actively protected IPR not an open API
I understood the meaning of "is derived from" to be "using the source code to make a derivative of" as opposed to "using the services of". If I use libc, I don't think I am creating a libc. Unless I am, I'm not deriving, I think. If I use libc, I simply use the services. Hence, libc is "a section of" the thing I am making, and does not derive from it. How is this wrong? Is it "strategic" to look at sections as derivations? -Jim
