Quoting Henrik Ingo (henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi):

> On this topic there are many opinions out there and little case law,
> but personally I've always thought that if the FSF as the author of
> the GPL thinks something is permitted, then at least that much must be
> permitted and you can quite safely do that.

In the general case (obviously excepting GNU packages), FSF is not the
copyright holder and licensor.  Hence, it cannot speak properly to other
licensors' intentions, and its opinions are not relevant to what such
licensors are willing and able to permit.  (It would not in that case
have standing in any related litigation, either, but that's a different

I always value Prof. Moglen's and Richard S.'s views about what they
intended the text of that and other FSF licences to accomplish, on the
other hand.

> I've always felt that words like "independent" and "combine a larger
> program" are a bit ambiguous when your two separate programs still
> interact and "work together" so to speak. Even so, whether it is
> because it is an aggregation or for some other reason, the GPL FAQ
> clearly suggests it is permitted.
In my personal experience, studying and understanding the copyight-law
concept of 'derivative work' is useful and reading GPL FAQ's
pronouncements is not.  Your mileage may differ.

Rick Moen                   "So, every time a new iPhone's about to come out,
r...@linuxmafia.com         one will get left in a bar?  Apple's like a clumsy,
McQ!  (4x80)                alcoholic Easter Bunny."             -- Rex Huppke
License-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to