We have a GitHub repository where we distribute our source code. For that, we want to use a really permissive license, like MIT. Of course, some of our projects have GPL or similarly licensed dependencies. However, we do not include their source code there but rather (since we're using maven) list them in our POM files.
It is my understanding that, from a copyright point of of view, our source code represents a new "creative work" so we can choose any license we want for it. This is so because, the source code we distribute is not a mere "derivative work" of the dependencies (rather the only references to them are the names of some classes and methods).
However, when someone downloads and builds the project he is linking together or project and the dependencies and so possibly creates a derivative work (I don't want to dive into the dynamic vs static linking debate here). Thus, the license terms of the compiled project would be different from our source code.
Is this a valid way of licensing the repository?