On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 07:49 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 05:04, Erwin Rol wrote: > > > So GPL zealots, as you call them, can implement libraries that are > > compatible with other libraries, without violating anybodies copyright. > > And they can put libraries under the GPL and force you to follow that > > GPL when you use their libraries. You, of course, can reimplement those > > libraries too if you want and put them under a different license. > > And you'll know they are zealots when they make the claim (which > they officially do...) that you are violating their copyright if > you distribute an executable that might link to a GPL'd library > even if you don't include *any* GPL'd code in your distribution. Does your application work without the GPL library? No? So your application _needs_ someone else his copyrighted work to function. So you _need_ the work someone else did to make money? And you _demand_ that it comes for free and gratis! If you don't like the GPL license of the library, rewrite it, nothing stops you from doing that. > (An exception exists if you can prove that there are compatible > non-GPL'd libraries - which is pretty bizarre, since that in > no way affects what is being copied in your distribution or > how they might claim ownership of it). It all comes down to; i want your work gratis, so i can make money with it. And if you dislike that i call you a yealot and bitch and complain that it is unfair. Can someone please point me to the law that says "you are forced to use GPL software" since apparently some people feel they are forced to use this unfair GPL license. - Erwin
