Scripsit Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> There's nothing magical about non-programmatic langagues that makes
>> copyright law not apply.
> Indeed not. But there is something about the concepts of "linking" and
> other software-oriented words the licence uses which make the
> judgement significantly harder in this case than others.
The word "linking" (or any of its forms) appears exactly once in the
GPL, and that is in a non-legal, non-technical aside comment:
| If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more
| useful to permit linking proprietary applications
| with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU
| Library General Public License instead of this License.
> Indeed - but I was saying "are you saying the GPL and LGPL are
> equivalent for this particular sort of work?"
The LGPL explicitly applies only to
| a collection of software functions and/or data prepared so as to be
| conveniently linked with application programs (which use some of
| those functions and data) to form executables.
Thus it is not as broadly applicable as the GPL (which applies to all
kinds of copyright-protected works), and it is probably not meaningful
to apply it to your example without some statement from the author as
to how he intends "linked" to be interpreted.
--
Henning Makholm "Jeg forst�r mig p� at anvende s�danne midler p�
folks legemer, at jeg kan varme eller afk�le dem,
som jeg vil, og f� dem til at kaste op, hvis det er det,
jeg vil, eller give aff�ring og meget andet af den slags."
