Re: GPL for documentation ?
Scripsit Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>
>> There's nothing magical about non-programmatic langagues that makes
>> copyright law not apply.
> Indeed not. But there is something about the concepts of "linking" and
> other software-oriented words the licence uses which make the
> judgement significantly harder in this case than others.
The word "linking" (or any of its forms) appears exactly once in the
GPL, and that is in a non-legal, non-technical aside comment:
| If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more
| useful to permit linking proprietary applications
| with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU
| Library General Public License instead of this License.
> Indeed - but I was saying "are you saying the GPL and LGPL are
> equivalent for this particular sort of work?"
The LGPL explicitly applies only to
| a collection of software functions and/or data prepared so as to be
| conveniently linked with application programs (which use some of
| those functions and data) to form executables.
Thus it is not as broadly applicable as the GPL (which applies to all
kinds of copyright-protected works), and it is probably not meaningful
to apply it to your example without some statement from the author as
to how he intends "linked" to be interpreted.
--
Henning Makholm "Jeg forstår mig på at anvende sådanne midler på
folks legemer, at jeg kan varme eller afkøle dem,
som jeg vil, og få dem til at kaste op, hvis det er det,
jeg vil, eller give afføring og meget andet af den slags."
Reply to: