On 1/23/06, jdow <jdow@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: "Mike McCarty" <mike.mccarty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > John Summerfied wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > >> If I employ a BSD-style licence, then you can choose to use a similar > >> licence yourself, to use a proprietary licence and to not provide your > >> source, or even to distribute _your_ software, even as a derived work, > >> under the terms of the GPL. > >> > >> If, on another hand, I grant you use under the terms of the GPL, then > >> you are still free to write your software, but if you link your program > >> with mine (isn't that what the headers are for?), then any distribution > >> you do must be under the terms of the GPL, and you must (if asked) > >> produce the source on demand. > > > > AFAIK, this has not been tested in court, and ISTR hearing that there is > > court precedent that linking a program with a library does > > not (LGPL language notwithstanding) create a "derived work". > > It does, however, mean that you must abide by the terms of use and > distribution for the library. The new terms in GPL3 make it EXTREMELY > unlikely that life will go on as before in the GPL world. There will > be no further linked in video drivers in precompiled form, for example. > Wording in GPL3 prohibits this. So either Linux does not adopt GPL3 and > refuses to include any GPL3 code or Linux dies for lack of specialized > driver support. RMS is, predictably, a silly turd. Quotes from the license text, please? And regardless, Linux can't be licensed under anything other than the GPL (ala current version). Mostly for reasons of being unable to get sign off from the thousands of people that hold copyright to license it under anything else. It's obvious the hate the GPL so please do us a favor and stop consorting with us unwashed heathens who think it's a pretty good idea. You're being, predicably, a silly turd. -- Chris "I trust the Democrats to take away my money, which I can afford. I trust the Republicans to take away my freedom, which I cannot."
