3 ms·
Might be a bit hair splitting (probably appropriate to do so in this context?), but the GPLv2 states that "mere aggregation of another work... does not bring th
by hnfong 5y ago
Might be a bit hair splitting (probably appropriate to do so in this context?), but the GPLv2 states that "mere aggregation of another work... does not bring the other work under the scope of this License". But it technically does not imply the converse is true, i.e. if it is not mere aggregation it must be a derivative work.
Since "derivative work" does not seem to be clearly defined in GPLv2, I would say it's hard to argue that statically linking creates a "derivative work" in the GPLv2 without showing that this is the general legal position of copyright law as opposed to a specific stipulation in the GPL.
- butlerm 5y agoI think that is correct. "Derivative work" is a legal term in copyright law that the framers of the GPL were wise not to try to redefine in the text of the license. They seem to like the term "derived work", but do not define that either, probably for the same reason. According to the U.S. Copyright Office, copyright only subsists in derivative works as such to the extent they show some independent creativity, which suggests that a non-mere-aggregation that is a mechanical or near mechanical combination of works may not be a legally protected derivative work at all, i.e. may be the sort of work you can prepare without permission from the copyright holder under Section 106 or some other legal allowance. All assuming you own legitimate copies of or have a proper license for the component works, of course.