Joel Rees wrote: Would you please quit changing to that giant font? > 2006-02-15 (水) の 00:25 -0600 に Les Mikesell さんは書きました: > >>On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 23:50, Joel Rees wrote: >> >> >>>The only problem with the GPL is the misinterpretations that circulate. Whether the interpretations are correct or incorrect, the GPL causes companies not to create software. Do you disagree with that? If so, then arguments about what the GPL actually says are irrelevant, since it is the interpretation, right or wrong, which guides companies' efforts. [snip] >> The FSF has taken the position that if >>a GPL'd library is unique, then anything that uses that >>library is a derived work and thus subject to the GPL >>restrictions even if it is distributed separately from >>the library. > > > I think you are overstating the case. How about not stating opinion like this, and actually discussing the text of the LGPL? >> In the past, an author that wanted to >>give a work away freely without the GPL restrictions was >>forced by the FSF to rewrite a library (badly, it was >>never really used) with all the corresponding functions >>instead of just permitting users to link their own >>GPL'ed library obtained separately. > > > Are you speaking of an actual case, or an actual FAQ, or are you > speaking of somebody's panicked interpretation after having used GPLed > source without having read the license? ISTR that there was actual pursuit by FSF at one time. But that's been a while, so it's not really evidenc of anything. > Anything which does not incorporate is not derived. Static linking > actually brings in the library code, so it is derived. Actually, courts have ruled that "incorporation" does not imply "derivation", the LGPL notwithstanding. But the corporations are not willing to face the prospect of going to court over this, they just don't produce the software for a minor segment of the market. > Stallman describes his take on dynamic linking, it's there on either > fsf.org or gnu.org for anyone to read. Publicly stated. Anyone worried > about it can read that and see what they think for themselves. I went and did a search, and can't find what you allude to. Why not give us a link yourself? I found this http://blogs.msdn.com/jasonmatusow/archive/2005/11/13/492285.aspx with this in it: [QUOTE MODE ON] I don't know Ian, but he strikes me as an extremely bright guy and has also pretty clearly shown he has chops in the Free Software development space. So what is the rub here? The fact is, if you ask the Free Software Foundation GC Eben Moglin about his opinion regarding static vs. dynamic linking (which I have), he asserts a rather startling thing. His interpretation is that BOTH a static and dynamic link represent aggregation and the terms of the GPL (if you distribute) apply. When I have asked this same question of the commercial OSS players (particularly the Linux vendors) they will adamantly state that it is only static linking that would do it. [QUOTE MODE OFF] > Until there are court cases, of course, it's just like any other license > -- we don't know what a court might decide, and we put ourselves > somewhat at the mercy of the license holders when we use their property. > > So what? (I personally prefer to depend on the mercy of someone who > publishes under GPL more than of someone who publishes under Microsoft's > EULA, for example.) The so what is: Corporations don't want to go to court, they want to sell software. If they face the remote possibility of going to court in order to produce a driver for a minute piece of the market, then they aren't going to produce the software. [snip] > You are always free to ignore the GPLed software, which was the way it > was before the software was published under the GPL. I think you completely missed Les' point. Mike -- p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);} This message made from 100% recycled bits. You have found the bank of Larn. I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you. I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
