On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 04:28:57PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote: > > But if there were no changes, e) isn't an option, so we're not allowed > > to change it to the GPL, so GPM's license restricts it. > > That's not a problem, because without changes the first paragraph > applies, and it's compatible with the GPL (no restrictions on the > distribution). > > > Maybe someone else could explain how this would be permitted, but it > > would seem simple to make e) not care if there were changes or not. > > I don't think it needs to be changed. However, someone from the FSF > should confirm that. > > > > If linking with a GPL library is a change, then the new e) applies and > > > distribution under the GPL can be done as well. > > > > That would mean that simply compiling a program is changing it. > > Yeah, I wouldn't call linking a change. Well, I can see an easy way around this: Don't ship Vim such that it tries to link against the gpm library by default. This would be wrong anyway since Vim is not GPL'ed, and this would encourage people to violate the license on the GPM library. Debian can write a very small patch that enables linking with libgpm, and Debian can license that patch under the GNU GPL. Voilá. -- G. Branden Robinson | Mob rule isn't any prettier just Debian GNU/Linux | because you call your mob a branden@debian.org | government. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgp78HPiV3vzU.pgp
Description: PGP signature