-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
The thing is, you shouldn't forget that the GPL is intended as a "viral" license. I would agree that linking a library is within the realm of the law, but my suggestion is to just avoid most of the legal obfuscation here and just ask the maintainer of whatever library you are using how he feels about you linking it in proprietary software.
============
This message was signed with GNU Privacy Guard, available at http://www.gpg.org
On Mar 12, 2005, at 22:06, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: [...]You see, there's no mention of POSIX or "being needed to make the program work". I think one can reasonably say that a statically linked executable is covered by "any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed or adapted" as far as its components are concerned.
Bzzt. According to the FSF, "static linking creates a derivative work through textual copying". By that silly logic, even if you have permission to reproduce something, you just can't prepare compilations (hint: newspapers, catalogs, etc.) unless you also have permission to prepare derivative works.
regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
iEYEARECAAYFAkIzxOUACgkQt65ZG5ykqBLokwCcDpgebLLDGQgdm7rQpbMI74CE pgIAn07UiiQ7xhEbUgSWzmj1pFYIqVni =JuCz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
