>> Which, I believe, is simply _wrong_. > It's a license, it's neither right or wrong.
No, I don't mean the license is wrong; I mean the belief that a copyright license can bind independently-created work is wrong. (I think a case could be made that the license is wrong too, but in the sense of "a bad thing" rather than of "an incorrect thing". But that is a separate issue and definitely is not what I was trying to say when I wrote the above quote.) > 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. Is there any basis for this other than the FSF's claims? I'd be very interested in hearing more, as it means that - in jurisdictions where it applies - writing to an interface (at least if there is only one implementation of it) extremely dangerous: *all* licenses would become as viral as the GPL under such circumstances. > Legally, the code *does* have a binding relationship with GPL'd code. This is the first time I've heard of such a theory, which is why I want to hear more (statutes, preferably, but if it exists only in case law, cases). I find it utterly insane, but that's true of a lot of law, and I'd like to know how widespread the insanity is. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML [EMAIL PROTECTED] / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
