Le 20 Juin 2006 22:38, Mathieu Bouchard a écrit :
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, Marc Lavallée wrote:
Is a patch using [expr] like a derivative work? I don't think so. A derivative work is more like a "new version" of something. "1+1", even calculated with a GPL software and saved within a patch is not a derivative work.
Derivative work according to GPL includes anything made with GPL libraries. If you can make [expr] run in another process, you might have an effective means of circumventing the GPL. =)
The term "derivative work" is defined in the copyright law, not in the GPL. Here's an article about this: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366 And the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
Modifying a software does create a derivative work. Static linking also create a derivative work. But using a software never create derivative works. A PD patch could be interpreted by some other software, like a tiff image created with the Gimp could be opened and modified using Photoshop.
work. A picture retouched with the Gimp is a derivative work of the original picture, not of the Gimp.
It's not a suitable analogy because the picture doesn't contain a copy of the Gimp.
Just like a patch using [expr] does not contains a copy of [expr].