Alan Cox wrote:
Everyone can get their own access to the MS code, and they make no
claims on yours.
You haven't read the small print on many microsoft supplied developer
libraries then.
The FSF claims you can't distribute code you've written yourself under
your own terms if it links to a GPL'd library at runtime. My example
Again be careful of the term "link" - it has all sorts of wrong meanings
to technical people. The law on derivative works for software is still
very unclear (lack of caselaw) but there is certainly no reason to
believe it is as simple as "linking" in the compiler sense as opposed to
the "independent works" sense.
Agreed - it is a complicated issue.
But you see that library is the GPL authors code and they've exercised
their right as an author to decide what they do with their code.
No, they've gone well beyond that in claiming that your own code which
calls that library's interfaces is also under their control.
> Your
right to control your code happens to be the same as their right to
control their code.
You'd expect that to be the case, but it hasn't been.
Anyway you can always write an alternative library.
How can the existence of a different library make any difference to the
status of another piece of code that might use it? And why does anyone
think that's a productive thing to do?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
