<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Kyle Mitchell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kyle@kemitchell.com" target="_blank">kyle@kemitchell.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><br>
<br>
</span>Following GPL 3.0, section 5, trailing paragraph:<br>
<br>
4. If you combine this software with other software to<br>
make a larger program, you must release any source code<br>
for that larger program that has not yet been released.<br>
<br>
Does that avoid the issue in your readings?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>It seems to, and it seems to be better language IMO.</div><div><br></div><div>My concern around this whole issue is that derivative works under the law might mean textual inclusion, the 1980's way of combining programs involved static linking and people seem to think that they can use dynamic linking for copyright avoidance (although I have an argument that they can't), and that we are now at a point where a single program need not run in a single address space, come from a single file, or reside in a single CPU or indeed a single computer. It just acts like one program. So, I would rather be in a position to analyze as an expert what is one program than to codify what is one for today's technology and then have inventions change the definition.</div><div><br></div><div> Thanks</div><div><br></div><div> Bruce</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div>