Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > paul cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> As another example, a command line program could wrap the functionality >> of nearly all libraries. If someone didn't want to link a program with >> libcurl, one would simply invoke /usr/bin/curl and get much of the same >> functionality. Should these be different actions from a licensing >> standpoint? >> >> As always, let me know if I seem to be on crack. > > You're not on crack -- but I don't think you're right either. There's > a series of fine distinctions here, and the true answer is murky > enough that Debian's right to take the conservative path.
Quite right, but being conservative doesn't exclude discussion. Without discussion, in our out of court, the matter will remain murky. > You argue that a command line program should be no different from a > dynamically linked program. The FSF argues it the other way: that > dynamic linking should be treated no differently from static linking. > If it *is* different, then the GPL reduces to the LGPL, and the FSF's > bargaining chips in Readline and GMP go away. That's their problem. > It's interesting to look at how the FSF's position on this evolved > from "We need this to be the case" to "This is the case" -- check out > /usr/share/doc/clisp, for example. That was back when Stallman used > reason instead of dogma, though. I never thought I'd see that written by one of the regulars on this list. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]