Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 04/02/2013 11:17 PM, Anthonys Lists wrote:
> So as long as Google stuck to using interfaces that the kernel devs explicitly
> published to user space, then using those header files EXPLICITLY does NOT
> create a derivative work, and therefore the GPL can NOT cross that boundary.

That's exactly the point.

What Google did was to take the kernel's header files documenting those public
interfaces (which contain GPLv2 licenses) and strip out EVERYTHING BUT the
documentation of the interfaces (and, I think, various macros, type definitions,
etc.), and provide those new headers under the Apache license.

This was considered to be legit, rather than a GPL violation, precisely because
those aspects of the headers are considered to be "facts" rather than
copyrightable elements.

See e.g.:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/29/google_android_and_the_linux_headers/
http://www.itworld.com/open-source/140916/android-sued-microsoft-not-linux