Re: linking to GPL'd libraries WAS Re: One unclear point in the Vim license
lloyder@canada.com writes:
> 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.
The combined linked binary program is the derived work. It is that
combined linked program which can only be distributed if the
distribution meets the terms of both licenses.
And, any way of distributing that combined linked binary program, even
by trying to split it up into little pieces as a subterfuge, is still
the same thing.
> 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.
If you think there is a "bug report", then feel free to post it. But
don't expect me to try and think up ways for other people to defeat
the GPL!
> 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.
I'm telling you: it is. I gave you the reasoning; some people have
raised lots of FUD, but it's all really just FUD.
Reply to: