On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 23:15 -0700, jdow wrote: > From: "Les Mikesell" <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> > > > On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 09:50 -0400, Sean wrote: [snip] > > It is the FSF's interpretation that anything that needs a GPL'd > > library to function is a derived work of that library even when > > distributed separately . I'm sure that with sufficient funds > > you could find well-trained lawyers to argue either side of > > that case, but it sounds like insanity to me that you can violate > > a copyright without copying the material in question. Or that > > whether a violation exists or not depends on whether or not a > > functionally equivalent library exists under a different license, > > something that none of the parties involved might not know and > > that could change without their involvement or knowledge. Hmm. The FSF seems to say: You use any nail other than ours, we own your hammer because it's a derived work. -- brtaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
