On 04/04/2013 02:50 PM, Alexander Kobel wrote: > Then, everybody is free to use "my-app.C" constraint to my terms, since they > are > imposed on this very file. However, nobody would be allowed to use /GSL/ to > compile this program, because GPL considers "my-app.C" a covered work > /whenever > used with a GPL'ed implementation/ of the GSL api. So in essence, the source > is > useless for purposes other than code study to anyone but me, since I am the > only > one free to re-license my own creation under a different license (even without > explicitly stating it). People will compile the program with GSL, of course, > but technically they are not allowed to do so
You're allowed to use GPL-licensed works in any way you see fit on your own computer, including compiling against works with incompatible licenses (e.g. compiling a Linux kernel with proprietary drivers included). You find yourself in violation of a license only when you start conveying covered works to others. So, recipients of my-app.c could compile it against GSL on their own system, but not share the resulting binary with others. > Still, I agree that a more trustworthy source for the interpretation is > required. And I hope it turns out that the above situation is actually not > true... I've broken my own resolution and replied on-list because I thought it was important to correct your misunderstanding publicly, but if you'd like to discuss this further, feel free to take it off-list. Though I understand if you don't consider my point of view to be trustworthy enough. :-) _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
