On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 21:26, Sean wrote: > > Please research the history of RIPEM and the reason the fgmp > > library exists. This was an attempt to make a free distribution > > that used, but did not include, the gpl'd gmp library and did > > include some code under a different license. The FSF used > > legal threats to stop distribution. Nothing has changed > > in their interpretation since then in spite of the bad press > > they got from interfering with another free project. > > You refuse to acknowledge your incorrect assumptions once again. If my assumptions were incorrect I wouldn't have bothered posting them. > The RIPEM project linked to a GPL library. If it didn't want to > obseve the rules of the GPL it shouldn't have linked to a GPL > library. It's very simple to understand if you happen to not > have a mental impairment. There is nothing simple about the concept that code written to use a library becomes controlled by that library's owner - and I'll repeat for anyone who missed it the first time - they did not distribute the covered library at all. The concept really only exists in the FSF's imagination but they aren't afraid to use legal threats that would be too expensive for anyone to contest. > Yes, people are free to release their code under the LGPL when > that is appropriate. But when they release it under the GPL > you have to AGREE to the terms or go elsewhere. You only have to agree to the terms to distribute copies. An end user with his own copy does not have to agree to anything. He just finds that different code from other parties can't be distributed to him. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
