'Windows 10 destroyed our data' Microsoft taken to US court

Re:'Windows 10 destroyed our data' Microsoft taken to US court by pdkl95 on Saturday March 25, 2017 @09:16PM (#13958452)

> did I just create a derivative work of "ls"?

No, output of a program isn't the program itself, so it doesn't fall under copyright[1]. Why would you expect that it would be a derivative work? It should be obvious that e.g. when gcc outputs a compiled program it doesn't automatically become tied to the GPL.

The only exception - which is mentioned[2] in the GPL - is if the output of a GPL licensed program is part of the licensed program. (quines, other rare utilities)

    2. Basic Permissions.

    [...] This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission
    to run the unmodified Program. The output from running
    a covered work is covered by this License only if the output,
    given its content, constitutes a covered work. [...]

> would my program that calls [a library derived from GPL licensed program] also be a derivative?

Probably[3], but see the FAQ[4] for answers to common situations and a real lawyer for actual legal advice.

> does one form of calling create a derivative and the other form not?

Correct. They are different. The intent is that the GPL licensed code is still open. Users that receive copies of the new stand-alone executable can exercise their right to examine and modify that code. They can easily replace it with a version they have modified without touching your other programs that merely use the output.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput

[2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html

[3] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL

[4] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:'Windows 10 destroyed our data' Microsoft taken to US court by derekp7 on Sunday March 26, 2017 @12:08PM (#13961426)

I wasn't expecting the output of 'ls' to be covered, however by making my program dependant on calling the 'ls' program, it could be that we now have a combined work of the two. Arguably, this is no different than calling a hypothetical "lib-ls" function, but if "lib-ls" is GPL (not LGPL), then that is usually considered a combined work.

My point, however, wasn't these specific scenarios, I was using them as examples as examples in response to the parent's comment inferring that you know exactly what it means. "Consult a lawyer" kind of just reinforces the point.

Of course, I do agree that most community licenses such as the GPL are infinitely more readable than most proprietary software licenses.

[ Parent | on HN ]