Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 10th Sep 2010 23:38 UTC
Permalink for comment 440532
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/15/13 23:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-17
Not so. Look up the definition of "derivative work" under copyright law.
A derivative work is a later work which contains in part major elements of another earlier copyrighted work.
So, your 10000 line program contains just 100 lines of an earlier work. 1%. Probably insufficient to be consider a "major element" of the earlier work.
But, even if it is considered to fall within the definition of a derived work, then ownership of the derived work is split between the authors in accordance with the level of their relative contributions. This means that the authors of the GPL code have 1% ownership in the program.
The derived work can only be distributed when all the owners reach mutual agreement on the rights to distribution. In this example, you could probably either pay the GPL authors a small amount for a commercial license to use their 100 lines, or alternatively offer to give them 1% of the profits.
Edited 2010-09-11 17:45 UTC