Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tim Smith wrote: >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> > My answer is below it. As far as the GPL is concerned, everything is >> > compatible with it. It might not be so under jursidiction of the GNU >> > Republic (where only Mr President Stallman knows and rules what is >> > "compatible"), but who cares? >> >> This makes no sense. If I have some GPL'ed code and some code under license >> Foo, and I can combine them in a program in such a way that I can satisfy >> they terms of both GPL and Foo, then it makes sense to say they are >> compatible. If I cannot do so, then it makes sense to say they are >> incompatible. > > First sale aside for a moment, GPL is a bare copyright license. When > you merely "combine" works, you create compilations, not derivative > works. The former is also known as "mere aggregation." Got it now?
Linking code always is a derivative work of the individual parts, and rarely a "compilation" in the legal sense. The question relevant to the courts is whether the parts of the whole can be considered reasonably independent. It is one criterion for a compilation in the legal sense of the word that all parts make independent sense outside of the compilation. For example, consider libgcc: it can usually be replaced with other libraries easily, so it would probably make little sense for the FSF to use the GPL instead of the LGPL for it: they would be on shaky legal ground for pressing the difference. The LGPL's basic difference is that it does not extend the protection to the complete derived work, and such an extension might not go down with some courts for something like the libgcc. I think that the main purpose of the LGPL for the FSF nowadays is to stay out of court for cases where they don't have a surefire chance of winning. It does not make sense otherwise that the FSF strongly deprecates using the licence, yet does not relicense core material like libgcc to the GPL. It is not because they would not want to have the protection extend over parts linked with it, it is more likely because they can't be sure to prevail with it. But that does not change that there is a lot of code around which _does_ fit the GPL protection when linking with it. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
