Re: Implied exceptions to GPL?
On Thu, 2002-05-16 at 14:54, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:46:16PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> > I find this rather odd, see:
> >
> > <URL:http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#InterpreterIncompat>, part
> > 2.
> >
> > Of course, you could argue that point 2 conflicts with point 3...
>
> I disagree that they conflict, but I think point 2 is dangerous advice
> to give, and prone to abuse.
>
> Can you elaborate your reasoning, please?
2. If you wrote and released the program under the GPL, and you designed
it specifically to work with those facilities, people can take that as
an implicit exception permitting them to link it with those facilities.
But if that is what you intend, it is better to say so explicitly.
3. You can't take someone else's GPL-covered code and use it that way,
or add such exceptions to it. Only the copyright holders of that code
can add the exception.
Point 2 says you can take someone else's code and implicit permission
exists that you can link it with required 3rd party libraries, even if
they are not GPL compatible (at least that is the way I read it: "people
can take that is an implicit exception").
Point 3 says you can't take someone else's code and use it that way.
Point 3 seems to directly contradict point 2.
--
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: