Re: XFree86 license difficulties
Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@evenmere.org> writes:
> paul cannon <pik@debian.org> writes:
>
>> As another example, a command line program could wrap the functionality
>> of nearly all libraries. If someone didn't want to link a program with
>> libcurl, one would simply invoke /usr/bin/curl and get much of the same
>> functionality. Should these be different actions from a licensing
>> standpoint?
>>
>> As always, let me know if I seem to be on crack.
>
> You're not on crack -- but I don't think you're right either. There's
> a series of fine distinctions here, and the true answer is murky
> enough that Debian's right to take the conservative path.
Quite right, but being conservative doesn't exclude discussion.
Without discussion, in our out of court, the matter will remain murky.
> You argue that a command line program should be no different from a
> dynamically linked program. The FSF argues it the other way: that
> dynamic linking should be treated no differently from static linking.
> If it *is* different, then the GPL reduces to the LGPL, and the FSF's
> bargaining chips in Readline and GMP go away.
That's their problem.
> It's interesting to look at how the FSF's position on this evolved
> from "We need this to be the case" to "This is the case" -- check out
> /usr/share/doc/clisp, for example. That was back when Stallman used
> reason instead of dogma, though.
I never thought I'd see that written by one of the regulars on this
list.
--
Måns Rullgård
mru@kth.se
Reply to: