On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 22:18:28 -0500 Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Give your head a shake. Just because you have a copy of a DVD does not give you the right to make as many copies as you want and distribute them as you wish. You have to ABIDE BY THE LICENSE. If you want to distribute a play that is based on the Star Wars(tm) DVD you bought, you better be damn sure you've got a good lawyer too. The GPL license is very clear. If you want to distribute a work that is ANY WAY associated with another GPL work you had better follow the rules of the GPL or be damn sure your lawyers are right that you are safe to ignore it. > No one can understand those legal ramifications. Yes, they're very easy to understand. And you have nothing to worry about if you comply with the license by releasing the source code to any extensions you make to a GPL work. It's only unclear to people who can't get their head out of their ass long enough to take a good look. Sean
