On Apr 2, 2013, at 8:47 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net> wrote:
> On 04/03/2013 01:45 AM, Tim McNamara wrote: >> Is that in fact correct? The quibbles here is what constitutes derivation. >> If you write a program that calls a library during its function, is that >> program derived from the library? Or is the library just a resource that >> the application uses? I think in fact and by tradition the latter situation >> is what applies. > > I don't think that "derivation" in the traditional copyright sense is the > correct term to consider here. A program that calls a GPL-licensed library > during its function is a defined as "covered work" in the terms of GPLv3, and > your right to use a GPL-licensed work is conditional on your compliance with > its > terms on the distribution of "covered works". > >> Make no mistake about it, the law has priority over the GPL in any court >> case. > > Oh, I'm not disputing that. It's just that this general and correct assertion > doesn't tell you anything about whether the GPL is actually in contradiction > with the law. > >> Especially if the court determines, as would quite possibly be the case, >> that the GPL has overreached (which in some ways it has). > > Absent a court ruling, it seems difficult to me to assert that. You don't see how overreaching is built into what you wrote above about covered works? _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
