Shachar,That is *precisely* what it means. This is a result of the restrictions of the license, and not any specific allowance.
I guess you are still a bit wrong about GPL, but of course IANAL.
IMHO, it's not the black or white world of it's a derived work or not. Random notes:
* LGPL is GPL compatible, but it does not mean you if you are not the author of an LGPLed piece of code, you are allowed to make a derived work out of it and release it under GPL (your winw example).
If I take fribidi (LGPL, you are one of the copyright holders), introduce changes to it, and release the resulting library under the terms of the GPL, I am not violating your license. Every single requirement you have placed on fribidi for redistribution is met, and I am therefor fully within my right to do so, if I wish.
Licenses being compatible is not about the freedoms, it's about the restrictions. Code released as public domain is compatible with any concievable license, because PD code is free of all restrictions. GPL code is only compatible with GPL license because it is very restricted.LGPL is GPL complatible, means LGPL gives a user at least the freedom that GPL does,
The original BSD license (with the advertising clause) was GPL incompatible because it had a restriction that the GPL could not guarentee. The new BSD license removed this as a restriction, and the license became GPL compatible.
Wrong. You can link to LGPL code because the license specifically allows you. Taking an LGPL library (say fribidi) and incorporating the code into a GPL program would, of course, not change fribidi's license. The new program, however, will be GPL only, lock stock and barrel. You can only use a piece of code from it under the LGPL if you can prove, categorically, that the exact same piece of code also exists in fribid (in other words - you can still take code under the LGPL from firibidi, but not from the new program).so you can *link* to an LGPL library, or even use it and include it in your GPLed software, but that library should still remain LGPL.
Well, that's what this entire thread is about, isn't it? There is no argument among the people in this thread that if you take my source code and incorporate it into your program, your program is derived work. The question is whether merely linking with a library causes your code to be dervied work.* GPL requires that derived work must be GPL too. Derived work here is work that uses the source code of the original one.
Even in those sections, wer'e still only really talking about dynamic linking. There is little choice but to acknoledge that creating a single file that has compiled code from my program and from an LGPL source means that the compiled file is derived work of an LGPL creation. The question deals with merely dynamic linking.
The question here is whether this requirement has a legal leg to stand on. I can require all I want. I can require that anyone emailing me will donate 10 cents to the FSF. This does not mean you have to open your checkbook.* GPL also requires that using the code (linking to it, ...), can be done just from GPLed code.
So, MS Office is not a derivedPutting the question of derived work aside for a second, the GPL itself specifically says that merely running the program that is licensed under the GPL does not require one to agree to the GPL (section 5). As such, there is nothing stopping one from running MS Word with winw, even if there is derived work status.
work of winw (a GPLed wine clone), so winw cannot *force* MS to
make it's Office suite GPLed, but as an agreement between
copyright holder of winw and you the user, you are not allowed to
run MS Office (which is not GPLed) under winw.
However, I find the idea of retroactively changing the status of a complete work from non-derived work to derived (and vice versa) ludicrous. If MS Word was not a derived work of winw when MS shipped it, how can it become one on your computer? I think that the very fact that winw did not even exist at the time MS Word became a complete work is sufficient evidance for any court to rule the it cannot be a derived work of winw. Nothing you can do (short of actually changing MS Word) later on can change this.
This pieces from GPL FAQ may help:No, it will not. This FAQ is very good if you want a piece of software for which you are the copyright holder to be clear of ambiguities.
Please, also, don't forget that I'm not claiming ALL cases of linking are NOT derived work. I'm claiming that SOME cases of linking ARE NOT derived work.
For example, I tend to agree with the binary kernel modules for Linux status quoe, more or less. I'm not sure I agree with the QT case, but I don't know the details enough. I cannot agree that every case is, however.
Section 5 of the GPL says:
*5.* You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
* *
-- Shachar Shemesh Open Source integration consultant Home page & resume - http://www.shemesh.biz/
================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
