[News.eclipse.foundation] [LICENSE] Definition of "derivative work"

["CL [dnoyeb] Gilbert" <Lamont_Gilbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Myself and another person were having a license discussion in the 
platform newsgroup when a helpful poster suggested we bring it here.  I 
came hear and read a bit and think this is the correct place.

The issue is the definition of derivative work.  I will repost my 
position from the other forum here.


The GPLs position on derivative work has not changed with the emergence 
of Java.  For instance when one has a library he intends to be useable 
by others he may license it under the LGPL.  Which means you can link to 
it without being required to release your source provided

1. You link 'dynamically' which means your object code will not contain 
any of the libraries code.

2. The header file you use to link dynamically is NOT under the LGPL, 
because you are still 'statically' linking to the header, and your end 
work is still a derivative of this header.

It seems that many people have historically released their libraries 
under the LGPL without releasing the headers under a freer license. 
Thus, improperly using the LGPL.  The GPL would prevent the use of this 
header file in the library without the header being itself GPL 
compatable.  The LGPL allows the use of this header in the library 
without the header being GPL compatible.  This is the main reason the 
LGPL is better for libraries.  With this header one can now dynamically 
link to the library _without_ including any part of said library in his 
own code.

Jump forward to Java and this same situation is present with the LGPL 
and the CPL.  Both allow you to link to the work freely (unlike GPL), 
but not to become a derivative work freely (just like GPL).  The way to 
deal with this I believe is as it has been(so I have read):  Create a 
library of the interfaces, and release that under a freer license.  That 
is how it is handled historically with c, c++, etc. and the LGPL, that 
is how it should be handled in Java.



Summary

One of two things needs to happen;

a.)  IBM must specify its own definition of "derivative work" and have 
that present in the definitions section of the license, and have that 
definition not include "linking" at runtime.  But how IBM can do this 
and still protect the Eclipse source from exploitation is unclear due to 
the myriad ways of 'linking' in Java.

b.)  The Eclipse Project must package the interfaces to the Eclipse 
Platform (the portions that do not need protection from exploitation) in 
seperate jar files, under a seperate freer license.


Needless to say, some do not agree.  What is your position?


--
Respectfully,


CL Gilbert

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door() into 
the sheepfold{}, but climbeth up some other *way, the same is a thief 
and a robber."

GnuPG Key Fingerprint:
82A6 8893 C2A1 F64E A9AD  19AE 55B2 4CD7 80D2 0A2D

For a free Java interface to Freechess.org see 
http://www.rigidsoftware.com/Chess/chess.html