Alexander Terekhov wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [...] > > Not really. I am looking for reason, why some programs using kernel can > > be not-GPL, while programs using GPL library has to be GPL. > > "programs using GPL library has to be GPL" is the GNU law crapola. > Unless you happen to live in the GNU Republic (i.e in alternative > universe), don't buy the FSF's illegal crapola. Research the law > on software derivatives, copyright misuse, and antitrust (IP price > fixing contracting/conspiracy). > > regards, > alexander.
This is one of the things that piss me off. GPL is rarely tested in the court. The only court confirmed answer is that if you do some modification to original program you have to release changes. But what about the case I am interested, linking GPL liensed dynamic library to program. What now? Do you know at least one court case of this? I googled, but no result. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
