On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 21:56:14 -0500
Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If my assumptions were incorrect I wouldn't have bothered
> posting them.
If you ever come to terms with just how incorrect you are,
perhaps you'll rescind 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.
>
You want to make this stupid exception because it's a library.
It doesn't matter if it's a library or a turnip, if you don't
understand the legal ramifications of it, best steer clear.
If the RIPEM authors didn't want to have any legal problems
with GPL authors, they should not have linked to a GPL library.
It's very very simple:
* * IF YOU'RE NOT PREPARED TO ABIDE BY THE GPL
LICENSE STAY AWAY FROM GPL CODE * *
> 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.
Yes. You're right.. See, it's even more free than I made clear!
What's yer proooooblem ?
Sean
