"Derivative Work" for Software Defined

[Andre Hedrick]

On 6 Jan 2003, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

> andre at linux-ide.org writes:
> 
> > One of the questions about "Derivative Work" as it relates to binary
> > only loadable objects, is the creation of a boundary layer of execution.
> > Specifically, the design and publishing an API which properly glues into
> > an open source gpl program or kernel(ie loadable modules services) designed
> > to provide an execution layer between the GPL and Commerial private code.
> > Where as no GPL code in any form is allowed to touch the Commerial code.
> > The converse is true, obviously.  The execution layer or boundary.
> > Now using this reference from 1995, many companies have gotten legal
> > positions about binary modules.
> > 
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b0rbb%245iu%40klaava.helsinki.fi
> 
> What Linus says presumably is valid for Linux.  RMS agrees with that
> in the message you forwarded.  It doesn't necessarily apply to any
> program other than Linux.  Note in particular the last paragraph in
> Linus's message.

If all one is using are headers or .h files and everything else is from
scratch, does using the headers under the statement above comply with the
intent?

I am not seeking an opinion without paying for it.

> > I ship and sell binary only products, so I have an interest in not
> > restricting people.
> 
> Other than your customers, presumably.  Restrictions cut both ways.

In what way would a restrict cut both ways here?

I am a little naive, but always try to do the right thing.

Regards,

Andre

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