On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 21:58, Sean wrote: > > 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. No, it's not an exception and has nothing to do with it being a library. The FSF and my interpretations would apply equally to any snippet of code even if it is included inline instead of being linked. The point is that no copyrighted material covered by the GPL material is being distributed. The end user has his own copy of the GPL'd material and the right to use that copy any way he wants. Yet the FSF claims the right to prohibit distribution of this other code containing no parts under their license by someone with no reason to have ever agreed to their license. > 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. No one can understand those legal ramifications. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
