> As long as it's not distributed "as part of a whole which is a work
Correct. Linking does not create a "work based on the program" because
linking does not create a work. Only a creative process can create a work.
Anything else is mere aggregation.
These terms are synonymous. And neither of them can apply to something that
is not a work.
The license is just clarifying copyright law. Even if it intended to do
something else, it can't. The license cannot set its own scope.
They make perfect sense. They're clarifications of copyright law to help
people who might not be familiar with the law understand what their
obligations under the license are. All of those sections are reasonable
explanations of what a "derivative work" is. It would be extremely strange
to try to parse them for subtle differences.
In any event, even if the GPL said "if you ever look at any source code to a
GPL'd work, the FSF owns everything you code after that", it wouldn't
matter. The GPL can't set its own scope. Copyright law, and the definition
of a derivative work, set the GPL's scope anyway.
The GPL only makes sense if you understand "mere aggregation" to mean 'as
opposed to creative combination'.
DS
-
