RE: Roaring Penguin's view

> > > If I develop import/export filter using the API (or ABI),
> > > am I "deriving a product from" the GPL:ed work or am I
> > > "developing a product for" the GPL:ed work?
> 
> Definitely a gray area.  I suspect it would depend on the 
> particular facts.

Probably. But mainly it will depend on what the law recongnises
as a derived work.
 
> > Well according to FSF, you would be "deriving from", as 
> they *claim* that
> > you cannot write a GPLed plugin for a propriatary program 
> (if it's not
> > fork/execed).
> >     http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins
> > 
> > This is not to say I think this has any legal merit - just that FSF
> > does make this claim.
> 
> They can believe whatever they want to believe about what 
> constitutes a 
> "single program".  That's not the legal standard.  The legal 
> standard is 
> "derived work", 

Exactly.

> which probably has all sorts of legal 
> precedents already.

For computer programs, unfortunetly no. 
 
> In particular, the UDI example I gave included some 
> situations where I'm 
> sure a court would find the UDI driver NOT to be a 
> GPL-derived work, even 
> if it can be dynamically loaded into a GPL'd operating system 
> such that the 
> FSF would "believe" it's a single program.  And if the court 
> says it's not 
> a derived work, then the FSF's belief that the GPL applies is moot.

Agreed.
 
> > > Regardless of the case above:
> > > Can you give any resonable definition of "derive a product from"
> > > and "develop a product for" have clear and unambiguous 
> meaning in the
> > > general case.
> > 
> > you could probably come up with a "fair" definition, like 
> MPL, but you
> > would have to use a word like "substantial" somewhere.  Of 
> course, you
> > can always say that "develop a product for" means it did 
> not use any 
> > non-header source files.  In any case, such a definition 
> would be pretty 
> > much non-viral.
> 
> Well, technically, the definition might as well match what is 
> and isn't 
> legally a derived work.

True, it was an attempt for try to define derived work from 
the other direction. That is what is not a derived work or
rather when do you simple "develop a product for" something.