Re: XFree86 license difficulties
paul cannon <pik@debian.org> writes:
> On 2004-01-31 14:01:42 +0000 MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>> On 2004-01-30 19:31:44 +0000 paul cannon <pik@debian.org> wrote:
>> > If XFree86 does not consider linking to create a derived work which
>> > must carry the same restrictions as those in the library, then it
>> > does not seem there is a problem; an application linking against Qt
>> > and Xlib could be solely under the GPL. Or am I off my rocker here?
>>
>> Does XFree86 have some extensions that they developed? If so, how can
>> it not be a derived work if you use those XFree86 extensions? It would
>> be a mess, looking at each application.
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that the FSF's opinion
> on this is not universal.
You are definitely not wrong. It's just the Debian folks that believe
the faintest whisper from the FSF as were it the word of God.
> That is, it is not an irrational view that dynamically linking to a
> library is only _using_ that library, not creating a derived work
> from it.
>
> It seems to me rather like using a command line utility in a script. One
> might make wide use of GNU grep extensively in a proprietary program,
> for example, and do so without affecting or worrying about the license
> on grep at all.
>
> As another example, a command line program could wrap the functionality
> of nearly all libraries. If someone didn't want to link a program with
> libcurl, one would simply invoke /usr/bin/curl and get much of the same
> functionality. Should these be different actions from a licensing
> standpoint?
Good point.
> As always, let me know if I seem to be on crack.
You seem to be unusually sane for this list.
--
Måns Rullgård
mru@kth.se
Reply to: