Viral licenses (was: wxWindows library...)

[Alexander Terekhov]

John Cowan wrote:
[...]
> computer scientist (HINAL)

http://www.digital-law-online.com/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html

[...]
> Added material is not itself a derivative work of the GPL'd
> thing, obviously.  A binary, however, which combines them into
> a single object, probably is.

I don't think so. I think that source code and the object code 
are just different forms of the same copyrighted work. I think 
that neither static nor dynamic linking constitutes creation of 
derivative work. Finally, I personally think that all those FSF
myths ("incompatible licenses", etc.) are laughable and won't 
stand in court.

regards,
alexander.

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3