from the libertarian newspaper - the topic that won't die! (Actually GPL)

[Hal Duston]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 09:33:29AM -0600, Luke -Jr wrote:
> > This "derivative work" you are referring to is never distributed. Source
> > code that can generate a work (that you seem to think is a derivative)
> > is what is being distributed. Again, the GPL's scope is limited to
> > copying, modification, and distribution (GPL v2, section 0).
> 
> Source code is the work.
>
> > Half of your argument *may* apply under the terms of GPLv3 (I haven't
> > read a recent draft), but it certainly does not apply under GPLv2.
> 
> Many (a majority) of actual Linux developers disagree with you.

Then they are wrong.  Refering to another work, e.g. #include doesn't make
the source code a derivative work.  If I have created the source code as
an original work and don't include any of the referenced work, but only
refer to (#include) it, it is not derivative work, and I can distribute it
under any terms I may desire.  In order for a work to be a derivative work,
the work needs to actually include the other work and not merely refer to it.

--
Hal Duston
hald at kc.rr.com