Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL

[Anthonys Lists]

On 02/04/2013 18:47, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> When you add to that the fact that the particular case we're concerned with
> involves copyleft licensing which gives a particular and precise definition to
> what is considered a "derivative work", it really doesn't seem to me possible to
> just write this off.
WRONG WRONG WRONG!

A derivative work is whatever the LAW says it is (whatever that is :-). 
NO open source licence defines the term "derivative work", although they 
may give their own interpretation of what they think it is.

The whole point of open source licences is they are LICENCES. They GRANT 
PERMISSIONS. If, IN LAW, my work is not a derivative work then I don't 
need no permission from no-one! and what the GPL or any other licence 
may say is totally irrelevant. In particular, any attempt by them to 
override the legal definition of "derivative work" is irrelevant and - 
quite likely - a fraud!

Cheers,
Wol