On Monday 15 November 2010 23:03:24 Josh Faust wrote:
> > - most files do not contain any license information; if you make
> > 
> >   Orocos-derived work (which you do, I think, and which is, of course,
> >   allowed and even stimulated) you are bound by using the same license as
> > 
> > the
> > 
> >   work you derive from; and in the case of Orocos that is LGPL and not
> >   BSD (most of the time).
> 
> This is definitely *not* a derived work.  He is using Orocos as a library.
>  The whole point of the LGPL is to allow others to use your library without
> binding them to your license.
> 
> It would be a derived work if he had modified Orocos itself and released
> it.

I agree with Josh, although the term 'derived work' may not name it correctly. 
The components, in the C++ sense, literally 'derive' from RTT classes, but 
they are not subject to RTT's license. What is more important is what the RTT 
license says: It reads as the GPL + this exception:

"
 *   As a special exception, you may use this file as part of a free       *
 *   software library without restriction.  Specifically, if other files   *
 *   instantiate templates or use macros or inline functions from this     *
 *   file, or you compile this file and link it with other files to        *
 *   produce an executable, this file does not by itself cause the         *
 *   resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public          *
 *   License.  This exception does not however invalidate any other        *
 *   reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU General   *
 *   Public License.                                                       *
"

This is the exact same exception that all GCC code had before moving on to GPL 
v3. So this is de facto a very widely used and accepted license form. Every 
C++ program/library compiled with GCC (pre-GPLv3) is subject to that license.

Peter