2006-02-16 (木) の 09:46 -0800 に Bob Taylor さんは書きました: > On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 07:48 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 00:41 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > > > On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 00:31, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > > > > > > In any case, no corporation is going to use anything which is GPL or > > > > > > LGPL and risk being taken to court. Plenty do, but not because they like to take risks, rather, they understand the license and are _happy_ to play by the rules. How many products can we name that the author came home from vacation one day to find a partner had sold the product out from under him? If the author uses the GPL, it can't happen, because even if the partner sells the original copyright, anyone, including the original author, can fork the last version that was published (legally) under the GPL and keep right on trucking. however, ... > > > > > They do use it, they just can't distribute it - not even if they > > > > > want to give it away. Which means that the rest of us won't > > > > > ever have it. > > > > Wrong. You can dynamically link against LGPL'ed libraries and many > > > > closed source packages, comprising $$$ ones, do. > > > > > > Yes, but RMS would prefer that the LGPL did not exist. > > > > Yes, this is his opinion. It's a political statement of his, you can > > agree with or not. > > As the author of the (L)GPL, his interpretation will carry great weight > in a court case. The intent of the author of the code in question takes precedence over the intent of the author of the license. Is that not clear? Unless the author specifically assigns the copyright to the fsf (and see above concerning that), Stallman's opinions have only advisory weight. > Remember, the Clib with GCC at its initial release was GPL'd. And? > > > > Tiny, but popular example: RealPlayer (RealPlayer10GOLD.rpm) > > > > > > > > ldd usr/local/RealPlayer/realplay.bin > > > > linux-gate.so.1 => (0x00869000) > > > > libstdc++.so.5 => /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5 (0x00e97000) > > > > > > You'll note there's nothing like, say, libreadline in > > > there. > > > > Exactly, because it's GPL'ed. LGPL and GPL are different things. > > Though they are similar, they are substantially different. And that's an interesting case, because that reveals both relevant sides to the GPL. The GPL on libreadline induced the team for one or more important projects to go GPL at one point, but, since then, the _functionality_ of libreadline has been reproduced several times, and the competition between versions has been beneficial for all. Work and sweat and time traded for progress, but that's what life is all about. Some of the _good_ re-implementations of libreadline are _not_ under GPL. Copyright is not pantent. > Unless the manufacturer of RealPlayer has a signed written statement > from the FSF they are hoping they will not be sued by the FSF. The FSF will _only_ pursue infractions when they have permission from the copyright owners to do so. Blast it guys, you are wasting time and bandwidth talking about stuff you openly admit you don't want to understand. I and others then feel an obligation to leave record in the list that your interpretations are wrong, which wastes our time as well. This flamewar has proceeded exactly like this before. Stop it.
