Re: Linux and GPLv2
Andrew Suffield <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 11:45:45PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> > If my implementation puts things in macros, and you distribute my
>> > implementation as part of your binaries as a result, that's *your*
>> > problem. I don't even know what you're trying to say here--"you put
>> > your copyrighted code in a header and I copied it into my object
>> > file--that's your problem, not mine!" doesn't make any sense at all.
>> The only reasonable way to use your library (which for this discussion
>> shall be assumed to have been legally obtained), is to compile
>> programs using its header files, and link these programs against it.
>> What did you expect me to do with those headers? Frame them and hang
>> them on the wall?
> Probably. The absence of a useful license for a project does
> *not* mean that you can make up whatever license you'd like to
> have. Generally it means that you can't do anything.
> An example of a package with a license of the form you describe here
> would be Sun Java. You get the source code, but you cannot link
> programs against it and then redistribute them. All you can really do
> with it is to look at it; hanging it on the wall is probably okay too.
It's perfectly OK to build the thing, and use it for running Java
programs, just not distribute it.