[License-discuss] Is Web application including GPL libraries covered under GPL?

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Grahame Grieve (grahame at healthintersections.com.au):

> hi Rick
> 
> Everything you say is true, but asking FSF was way cheaper than asking a
> judge in a court of law ;-)
> I don't have enough money and interest - that's what open source is about,
> right?

Well, speaking as someone who has interest but is too cheap to hire an
attorney to explain something that's interesting to study independently,
I can give you my opinion[1]:

o  Paraphrasing the San Francisco saying:  What GPL FAQ says about
   derivative works plus $2 will get you a ride on Muni.

o  Neither 'fork and exec' nor the concept of 'linking' (dynamic or
   otherwise) is likely to have any particular relevance to a judge 
   deciding whether work B is derivative of work B.q

o  Judges decide whether a work is derivative of another work by 
   identifying the copyright-eligible creative elements of both,
   determining whether elements of one have been incorporated into
   / copied by the other, and whether the copying is substantive
   as opposed to de minimus.

Interesting questions include what a judge will regard as a 'work' as
opposed to a collection of works in proximity.

But the more of the relevant caselaw you read, the less relevant the GPL
FAQ seems -- to this reader.

Anyway, consider modifying your page, because IMO you're contributing to
the common problem of the aforementioned category error among the
general computerist public.


[1] I've cleverly not giving you 'legal advice' within the meaning of
the unauthorised practice of law statutes by sticking to general
discussions of law without purporting to tell you how they apply to your 
specific legal problem.

-- 
Cheers,                                  Actually, time flies hate a banana. 
Rick Moen                                                    -- Micah Joel
rick at linuxmafia.com
McQ! (4x80)