> > The FSF FAQ says that *all* software linking against GPL libraries must > > GPL-compatible[1]. [2] contradicts the above even more directly.
Interestingly enough, neither [1] nor [2] mention linking. Which makes sense since the conditions they describe hold both before and after linking. [1] talks about adding a module to a GPL licensed program and the answer points out that the license on the program requires that the entire program be released under the GPL. [2] talks about a GPL library and points out that programs will include the library. On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:56:02PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > I've engaged in an extended discussion with the person on the other > end of [EMAIL PROTECTED], to whom Eben Moglen directed me, on both the > "derivative work" and "GPL is a contract" points. IANAL, and neither > is [EMAIL PROTECTED], but I raised many of the US legal precedents > which I have previously cited on debian-legal. Suffice it to say that > if the FSF has a leg to stand on, it's not visible through that > mechanism of inquiry. And there's a significant chance that you were asking questions in a way that meant the answers were irrelevant to the points you wished to discuss. Without knowing the specifics, of course, it's kind of hard to say for sure. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
