CDDL+GPL and stuff

[Konstantin Svist]

Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Konstantin Svist wrote:
>   
>> What I meant by a separate project, though - I was thinking of a 
>> source-only distribution. If the end users are allowed to link anything 
>> they want, as long as they don't distribute it, and distributing source 
>> code only is pretty much covered as "free speech" - or at least GPL 
>> doesn't impose such a restriction on it... or am I wrong?
>>     
> The question is, is your separate project really separate or actually
> still a derivative work? If it is the latter, it does not matter how
> you organize or publish it. You need permission to create a
> derivative work.
>
> I don't know where you get the "distributing source is free speech"
> from. It's irrelevant though. You're not publishing your own speech
> in the form of source code, you're distributing a derivative work
> of someone else's code. And you have no right to others' speech.
>
> Arnoud
>  


So you're saying the question is not whether someone distributes a 
binary that includes both module and kernel already linked, but the mere 
fact that the module is written so as to link to the kernel?
In other words, "linking" does not refer to the actual process by which 
a binary program is built, but rather the process of writing code that 
will be able to "link".

You're also saying that the current argument is about quantifying the 
"rules of thumb" such as listed at 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#Derivative_work_of_software) 
- specifically whether creating a plugin for a library constitutes a 
"derivative work"... something like that?




Sorry to keep bugging you, but you seem to know a lot about these 
things, and I'm curious :)