OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries

[Forrest J. Cavalier III]

> Here we have collections which unambiguously are collections: the question
> about statically linked software is precisely whether or not it is a
> collection.

I think someone must successfully argue that it is only a collection
(and does not meet the definition of derivative work:)

from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html....

  A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such
 as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
 fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction,
 abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast,
 transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations,
 elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original
 work of authorship, is a ''derivative work''. 

My take on this definition is that most statically linked programs
include a relocation table and symbol tables which are annotations
of the source code.

These annotations are not particularly original, but if you declare
that your statically linked program is not an original work of
authorship, then it is not protected under copyright law.

Now that may be OK to the open source community, but it will be,
um, difficult position for a proprietary software producer to hold.

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