Re: linking to GPL'd libraries WAS Re: One unclear point in the Vim license
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <tb@becket.net>
To: <lloyder@canada.com>
Cc: <debian-legal@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: linking to GPL'd libraries WAS Re: One unclear point in the Vim license
> lloyder@canada.com writes:
>
> > This is something I am very interested in, but as of
> > now, I am not well versed in the subject. My
> > searching has found that this topic is well discussed,
> > but not necessarily well described. Is there any
> > legal precedence here?
>
> It's a standard case of a derived work.
How so? Example: I write a book and suggest that you
get another book, because I am going to identify some
page numbers in that book where the content supports
my content. If you don't get that book, I am going to suggest that my book means nothing.
>
> > Has the object brokerage environments or similar
> > technologies -- RPC even -- ability to get around the
> > GPL been addressed in a meaningful proposal?
>
> In general, something which is a subterfuge to get around a licensing
> requirement, is disallowed by the courts. But someone might be
> sufficiently tricky, and then they would hurt us. As a result, it is
> distinctly *not* in the interests of the free software community to
> try and dream up ways of getting around the GPL.
Wow, I am worried for our free software community then.
You sound like the software companies that do not want
people to be able to publicly publish security bug reports.
How did the GPL get to its current state then? O darn,
we lost in court again, better go back to the drawing
board.
My readings suggest that this may be known issue that
is not well addressed. I am hoping that it is well
addressed or really is a non-issue as you suggest.
Best regards,
Lloyd
__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com
Reply to: