> Which, I believe, is simply _wrong_. It's a license, it's neither right or wrong. You choose to accept it, or you don't. It doesn't *force* you to do anything.
> As I said, in view of this - an apparent belief that the GPL can bind > code that bears no relation in copyright law anything GPLed - I would > not trust anything the FSF might say about copyright and the GPL. Ah, that case. The idea is that, if you write a program which cannot be compiled unless you link in a GPL'd library, you've created a "combined work". This is a legal term, not a software term. The FSF's position is that such a combined work exists as a legal whole even if broken into parts merely for distribution. That goes against your belief: "an apparent belief that the GPL can bind code that bears no relation in copyright law anything GPLed" Legally, the code *does* have a binding relationship with GPL'd code. Now, if readline used a standard API and there were multiple implementations of that API, some of which were non-GPL, that would be a different case altogether. _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
