On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 15:20 +0100, Erwin Rol wrote: > On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 07:49 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: [snip] > > 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. What I understand Les said is if someone writes an application that runs on Linux as well as on other OS's compatible with Linux that, if a user of that application runs it with a GPL'd library, he/she must GPL that application? What sheer zealotry! Those who work earn their living. Those who don't live off those who do. Which one are you? > > (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. In no way did Les say he wanted to make money off GPL'd work! > 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. You certainly implied this "forced to use GPL software". Bob -- brtaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
