Re: license question with non-GPL library

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> GPL because the work as a whole has to be licensed under the GPL, 
>
> Man oh man. Go back to doctor, retard. Try another one.
>
> http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf

And another long quote contradicting Alexander.  Cute.  Again, dearest
Alexander, like what you quoted tells you, the question is what
_whole_ work can be considered a derivative of the GPLed work.  That
there may be parts of the whole that are clearly _not_ a derivative of
the GPLed work does not change that permission _exceeding_ the
provisions of copyright law to redistribute and modify the GPLed
portions is only granted on the permission that the whole work is
licensed under the GPL.

That does not make every part of the whole a derivative of the GPLed
portion, but that is neither required nor even relevant.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum