Re: Implied exceptions to GPL?
On Thu, 2002-05-16 at 01:16, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:44:55AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > On Thu, 2002-05-16 at 00:30, Brian May wrote:
> > > 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...
> >
> > There's the rub. Point two talks about your code, not someone else's.
> > Notice the second word in point 2 for evidence.
>
> Point two is saying that people (other than the copyright holder) might
> infer that permission is implicit, which is what he's referring to, I
> think.
Perhaps. I took them to imply modification of the code in question to
link to the incompatible library.
IOW, if A is the copyright holder to a (GPL), and a must link to b (old
BSD), then B can assume that point 2 holds. However, if A writes a, and
B modifies a to require b (when a didn't require b before), then point 3
must hold, for B and everyone else. So, the clauses don't contradict
each other.
> (I agree with Branden's response.)
That's another way to look at it. I think the best conclusion we can
come up with is that the advice in point 2 is dubious and badly worded.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: