Re: [DotGNU]licensing of fox toolkit

[Fergus Henderson]

> 2. Modification of the configure scripts, makefiles, or installation
> tools of the Library to support a specific platform does not constitute
> creating a modified or derivative work based on the Library.

Sure... and pi=3, and black is white, and 2+2=5.

> 3. Subclassing from Objects or Widgets supplied by the Library involves
> no modifications to the source code of the Library itself, and consequently,
> subclassing from Objects and Widgets does not constitute creating a modified
> or derivative work based on the Library.

IMHO you should leave it up to the judges and lawyers to decide what is,
or is not, a derivative work for the purposes of copyright law.

If you want to permit users to use your library in this way without
any restrictions, just say so.  Don't try to specify how legal terms
should be interpreted.

E.g. here's how the LGPL does it:

 |   If such an object file uses only numerical parameters, data
 |   structure layouts and accessors, and small macros and small inline
 |   functions (ten lines or less in length), then the use of the object
 |   file is unrestricted, regardless of whether it is legally a derivative
 |   work. 

Note how the LGPL just says that (in certain specified circumstances)
use is unrestricted, rather than trying to define when something is
or is not a derivative work.

-- 
Fergus Henderson <address@hidden>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne         |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.