OT: problems with gpl-licensed software

[Robert Bonomi]

> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:09:32 -0700 (MST)
> From: Dale Scott <dalescott at shaw.ca>
> Subject: Re: OT: problems with gpl-licensed software
>
> > Thinking about extending or dual-licensing a gpl-licensed software ? 
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/7/338
>
> IANAL, but my understanding from researching the GPL is that if a piece 
> of software functions as an integrated part of some other software that 
ilicense under the GPL, then the software in question *can* be 
> considered to be a derived work of the other software - and under the 
> terms of the GPL must also be licensed by the GPL (even if the author has 
> copyright ownership and distributes their software separately, which are 
> the most common reasons I've seen given for why the GPL should not 
> apply).

nitpick -- if any GPL-licensed software is included in an executable,
then the _entire_ app *must* be GPL-licensed -- this is a condition
of the license of the  GPLed software 

the latest version of the GPL attempts to impose GPL licensing on stand-
alone apps that operate in an intimately connected fashion with a GPLed
app -- on the basis that it is a derived work, as you mention.  The 
'derived work' arqument is questionable, but has not been challenged
in court -- successfully or otherwise.

An owner of rights in an independantly developed piece of a GPLed app,
_can_ impose additional licensing requirements AS LONG AS those added
requirements do not conflict with the GPL terms.