I've been observing a lot of this discussion. I think that it is fair to say a lot of this discussion of header files, and linking run-time libraries, etc. is mostly academic.
I think what this discussion centers around is the legal distinction between an original work of authorship and an original derivative work of authorship. A number of posts back I gave the legal definition of a derivative work of authorship. I don't think that was too helpful. The concern here is what amount of copying necessary to any derivative work would negate derivative author's originality. Any work of authorship is original if it took a 'modicum of creativity' to create it. A 'modicum' mean a real tiny little little bit (any creativity). In copyright law, there are no defined distinctions. For the most part you must judge for yourself. The discussion about the GPL, LGPL, etc., is outside the scope of copyright law, and is governed by Contract law. Therefore, 'What is a derivative' is not a pertinent question if your query concerns an author's rights under the license in question. If the question is: Is X a derivative for purposes of the LicenseX. That question will governed first by the license, and to the extent the license incorporates legalese, by the case law and statute that defines that legalese. To know what the license means, look to the author. To know what the legalese means (you get the picture). The point is that it is important to avoid mixing legal questions. The copyright questions are separate from and have no bearing on the license question. EXEPTION: Where the license incorporates legalese without providing its own definition the legalese will be interpreted according to current legal standards. NatePuri Certified Law Student & Debian GNU/Linux Monk McGeorge School of Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ompages.com
