Re: linking to GPL'd libraries WAS Re: One unclear point in the Vim license
> I do not really understand why, I guess accepting it
> in the definition of derivative work is the basis, but
> I cannot help, but wonder as I have not seen legal
> challanges that support this.
It's a perfectly normal case of a derivative work. When you link
program A with program B, you are creating a derivative work, A+B.
You can only distribute that work if the licenses of A and B permit
> I also do not understand why GNU has to have contributers sign legal
> pagers if GPL works.
The FSF asks people to assign their work to the FSF because only the
copyright owner is legally allowed to sue for copyright infringement.
If the FSF has the copyright, then it can do so without a great deal
The FSF also requires that contributors to GNU software affirm that
they have the right to license those changes under the GPL.
How do either of these suggest that someone thinks the GPL doesn't
> I guess I am just concerned for free software.
Riiiight. What does that mean? What is your concern, actually?