Tim: >> This is the bit, about the computing industry, that I just find >> incredibly weird: A strange use of the term derived. >> >> Yes, if you took someone else's coding and put it *into* your coding, or >> put in the essence of how it did its job even if a bit modified, your >> work is "derived" from it. Les Mikesell: > The FSF claim has been that if the program won't work with any library > except the GPL'd one, it is a derived work even if it is distributed > separately. If the compile/run time linkage can work with alternate > libraries, then it isn't unless it includes covered material. Does some or all of your doodah whatsit "come from" their code? If it did, it is derived, in the normal meaning of the word. If it doesn't come from their code, whether or not it makes use of it, it can't possibly be derived from it. There has to be some sort of doing the same thing, e.g. writing the same routines, to be a derived work, in any sane understanding of the word. >> No, if your work communicates with someone else's program, it's not >> "derived" from it. My chair is not "derived" from a screwdriver, even >> if one was used to put it together. Nor is it derived from a table, >> even chairs and tables are sold together. > You don't usually 'communicate' with a sql server, you include it's > client library code, sometimes with dynamic loading. SQL's not my forte, but I was of the understanding that it's a data base server, and you plug data into it and give it queries. Much the same as you use a web server. You've got a variety of ways of interfacing with it. ... First, let's kill all the lawyers. -- (This box runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's important to the thread.) Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
