"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote: > > You might want to try the SFLC (Software Freedom Law Center) for > advise on this; sadly I don't have an email address at hand to give.
Moglen and his underlings at SFLC will pretend (they will never assert it in court) something along the lines of: http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/03/02/20/1544245.shtml?tid=117&tid=123 (Professor Eben Moglen Replies) ---- 2) Clarifying the GPL by sterno One issue that I know has come up for me is how the GPL applies in situations where I'm using GPL software but I'm not actually modifying it. For example, I write a Java application, and it is reliant on a JAR that is GPL'd. Do I then need to GPL my software? I haven't changed the JAR in anyway, I'm just redistributing it with my software. The end user could just as easily download the JAR themselves, it's just a convenience for me to offer it in my package. Eben: The language or programming paradigm in use doesn't determine the rules of compliance, nor does whether the GPL'd code has been modified. The situation is no different than the one where your code depends on static or dynamic linking of a GPL'd library, say GNU readline. Your code, in order to operate, must be combined with the GPL'd code, forming a new combined work, which under GPL section 2 (b) must be distributed under the terms of the GPL and only the GPL. ---- IBM: (Tenth Defense) SCO's claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse. s/SCO/SFLC regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
