On 2006-08-29T13:36:41, Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The point of renaming them *gpl is that it would be impossible to
> accidentally link against one. Therefore anyone who is doing it, knew
> perfectly well what they were doing when they did it.
I'm not a lawyer, but legally speaking, this doesn't make things better
or worse. Our intent is clearly documented already; that is sufficient.
If you want to rename them, fine, but it doesn't add anything
substantial which isn't already there if indeed we wanted to sue.
(Before someone brings it up: The same argument can be made for the
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() thingy in the kernel, and frequently is.)
I'd do it the other way around, too, come to think of it. Consider
everything not explicitly allowed for linking GPL, and document which
parts of the code is available to 3rd party users under the LGPL.
Sincerely,
Lars Marowsky-Brée
--
High Availability & Clustering
SUSE Labs, Research and Development
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - A Novell Business -- Charles Darwin
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
