Licenses etc. (was: Re: [antlr-interest] Re: Antlr Studio is cool.)

Paul Johnson gt54-antlr at cyconix.com
Fri Sep 23 12:13:17 PDT 2005


Matthew Tedder wrote:
> Paul et al,
> 
>   Indeed, "derrivative work" is defined by legal
> precident.  Trying to redefine this term would only
> serve the lengthen the GPL creating more potential for
> different interpretations.

Chapter and verse? Or even a single reference? What about the issue of 
'linking' in general, and dynamic linking? What if the source code is 
changed? Defined by legal precedent in what country?

I'm aware of only one test of the GPL and the definition of a 
'derivative' work, and that was Progress Software vs. MySQL, in a US 
court. In that case, on the matter of derivative works, the judge stated 
that "the matter is one of fair dispute". Hardly conclusive. If you have 
any more precedents, especially non-US ones, then I would be very 
pleased to hear about them.

>   So stop bashing the GPL... Especially when you
> demonstrate a blatant lack of understanding of it. 

What?



More information about the antlr-interest mailing list