Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote: ...
I knew you'll bite. That's why I've omitted as such and said just
linking, not linking as such. It's just like the upcoming EU patent
law harmonization directive and software as such. Bwahahah.
Seriously, if A and B are
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:14:22 +
Rui Miguel Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2005-03-12 at 16:49 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:05:04 +0100
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is perfectly false in case of static linking as well. The
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
You see, there's no mention of POSIX or being needed to make
the program work. I think one can reasonably say that a statically
linked executable is covered by any other form in which a work
may be recast, transformed or adapted as far as its components
are
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
I asked you in private if you could provide decent arguments against
why you consider the GNU GPL void, but you couldn't even provide
anything to my inquiry.
I don't recall receiving any private messages from you. You're a
victim of my spam filtering, I'm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The thing is, you shouldn't forget that the GPL is intended as a
viral license. I would agree that linking a library is within the
realm of the law, but my suggestion is to just avoid most of the legal
obfuscation here and just ask the maintainer of
