Big development in the GUI realm

[Robert Kern]

Jeremy Bowers wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:24:22 +0100, Damjan wrote:
> 
>>What you described is not ok according to the GPL - since you distributed
>>a binary thats derived from GPL software (and you didn't publish it source
>>code under the GPL too).
> 
> 
> No you didn't. You distributed a binary completely free of any GPL code
> whatsoever. The *user* combined your binary and the GPL to produce another
> binary, which will never be distributed at all.
> 
> In copyright terms, which is what the GPL works under since that is the
> law it has, what you distributed is completely unrelated to the GPL'ed
> program; there's no grounds to call it "derived".

You might be on firmer ground if it were legally clear exactly what 
"derived work" means. Unfortunately, the courts have been skirting 
around the issue of defining "derived work" particularly as it pertains 
to software. It is entirely possible that a judge would conclude that 
your software is a derived work of the GPL software.

Until such matters are unequivocally determined in a court that has 
jurisdiction over you, do you really want to open yourself to legal risk 
and certain ill-will from the community?

I'll reiterate my strategy: follow the intentions of the copyright owner 
unless if I have actual case law on my side.

-- 
Robert Kern
rkern at ucsd.edu

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
  Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
   -- Richard Harter