On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:03:09 -0500 Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Now we are back to the RIPEM example where a separate work > using only the published library interface to a GPL'd work > was threatened with legal action. Sorry, that assumes facts not in evidence. If you want to use a GPL library you better be sure about the legal ramifications. > And once again, it has nothing to do with 'using' a work. It > has to do with distributing what someone could imaginatively > call a derived work. Whatever, i'm assuming by this point you can figure out what I mean by such a shorthand. > And again, not using GPL'd works seems to be your favorite solution, > which makes it odd that you claim to like the license. What i'm telling you is that what you're saying is about as stupid as someone saying that Microsoft is "claiming" money out of their pockets. Nobody says such a stupid thing of course. They understand that to use Microsoft software you have to AGREE to give them money. To use GPL software you have to AGREE to use it. If you don't AGREE then by all means don't, but stop fscking bitching about it. It's about as stupid as bitching about Microsoft's licensing practices. And for the record I do like the GPL license very much, but i'm not so bold as to assume it is for everyone. Since you have such a problem with it, it seems like the best advice to offer YOU. It's not course of action I recommend to myself or even to most people. Cheers, Sean
