Alan Ruttenberg alanruttenberg@gmail.com writes:
Also, I don't think we have a difference of opinion regarding the complexities of determining whether something is a derived work. However, in the case of the GNU Classpath extension, it is the understanding, explicitly noted, that a derived work is created (a combined work) by the linking of the library. The license then makes an exception for this specific kind of derived work (as copyright owners they can license it as they please). Of course if there is no derived work then there isn't anything to argue about.
Perhaps the question comes up as to whether a project that is following the terms of the Classpath license is a derived work. It is an interesting academic question as to whether it is a derived work or not. However the question is moot since the license excludes such considerations as making a difference, as long as the library license terms are followed.
Well, AIUI, the licence terms are only a "moral" contract between the copyright owner and the user of the software.
As a user, you may be comforted to know that this clause means the copyright owner won't consider that you made a derived work by just linking with his code. What I'm saying is that this doesn't mean that a judge will find similarly, would he be involved between copyright owner and user for any reason about the resulting software.