GPL, "derivative works" and C++ templates

[John Cowan]

nospam+pixelglow.com at pixelglow.com scripsit:

> The OSI and FSF seem to have different ideas about what constitutes a
> "derivative work" under GPL and would thus have to be licensed under
> GPL as well. For example, Lawrence Rosen for OSI says that simply
> combining something with the work isn't a derivative work

Larry speaks for himself at that point, not the OSI.  (He also speaks for
me, as it happens, but I have nothing to do with the OSI.)

> whereas merely statically linking to a GPL library makes your work
> GPL in the GPL FAQ

That is official FSF policy, and FWIW the traditional interpretation in
the community.

But in the end it doesn't really matter what Eben thinks or Larry thinks
or anyone except His Honor thinks.  The term "derivative work" is a
statutory term, but it's one that is *deliberately* kept only partially
defined.  In the event of a lawsuit for infringement, the court will have
to decide on a case-by-case basis, and the result is unlikely to set any
meaningful precedent, because it will depend heavily on the particular
set of facts.

Consequently, there is no right or wrong answer here.  There is prudent
advice, but that's all.

My prudent advice is that it's never a good idea to antagonize the
copyright owner if you can possibly help it.  The statutory *penalties*,
as opposed to the definition, of infringement are quite definite,
and fearsome.  (So is the price of lawyers.)

-- 
All Gaul is divided into three parts: the part          John Cowan
that cooks with lard and goose fat, the part            www.ccil.org/~cowan
that cooks with olive oil, and the part that            www.reutershealth.com
cooks with butter. -- David Chessler                    jcowan at reutershealth.com
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3