On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 01:49:51AM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote: > > So how can the FSF talk about linked applications being derivative > > works. > > They use a legal loophole known as "freedom of speech", which enables > them to make claims that may not be actually be true as stated. If the > question of whether a given work is derived from a GPLed library ends > up in court (whit, ttbomk it yet never has), there is no guarantee > that the court will accept the FSF's claim as the natural basis for > making the judgement. This isn't specific to the GPL; lawyers have been playing games with 'derivative' for decades. No useful precedent that I'm aware of - cases have gone both ways (courts won't accept people trying to disguise derivation via weirdness, but they don't have a good definition for that either, so the problem remains lawyer-bait). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature