On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 17:57:00 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Bruce Lewis wrote: >> [...] >>> GPL'ed code. Your application's dependence on the GPLed code is very >>> likely to make it a derivative work. >> >> "Various claims made by the FSF, conflating engineering dependencies >> with copyright infringement, are not correct as a matter of law and >> do not form part of the agreement accepted by a licensee when >> exercising the license granted in the GPL. Therefore, >> notwithstanding the drafters' intentions, the GPL text as written >> does not compel the release of source code for independently >> authored software components that use (or are used by) GPL programs >> through any of the usual mechanisms employed elsewhere in the >> software industry. GPL "enforcement" actions that proceed on this >> basis, including those against NeXT and MCC which resulted in the >> assignment to the FSF of copyright to the Objective C and C++ front >> ends to GCC, operate under false pretenses." >> >> -- Michael K. Edwards, Will the Real GNU GPL Please Stand Up?, >> unpublished draft 10th June 2005. > > Too bad that the courts and the legal departments of companies like
Which court decisions are in disagreement with Mr. Edward's position? Isaac _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
