Argh. I really didn't want this to become a licensing argument. Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:
Walter Landry wrote: [...]
The GPL has very clear terms for how I can make copies of derived works. One of those terms is that the complete derived work doesn't have any additional restrictions above what the GPL has.
You don't seem to grasp the meaning of derivative work under the copyright law. A compilation is not a derivative work. Legally, compiled and linked binary is just another form of the corresponding complete source tarball (or whatever). Library dependency doesn't make dependent code derivative of the libary code no matter whether that library is some template stuff or not. Use of templates and/or static/dynamic linking does not constitues creation of derivative work. The resulting aggregation is a compilation with respect to its components, not a derivative. Mere aggregation, you know.
This is more than just compilation. I am taking pieces of a GPL'd work and pieces of the Graph library to create a combined work (the binary). The code gets all mixed together in the binary. This is especially evident with template code.
regards, alexander.
-- http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/125_F3d_580.htm
The referenced case doesn't involve making copies, and turns on the particulars of visual art. You would have a point if I said that moving the code from a CD to a usb key made a derivative work. Regards, Walter Landry wlandry@ucsd.edu