On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 12:02:36PM -0700, paul cannon wrote: > > > As we all know, the FSF [6] considers the mere act of linking to > > > create a derived work for the purposes of the GPL, and claims > > > anything linked to a GPL'd work must also be distributable under the > > > terms of the GPL. > > > > > > If the XFree86 Project takes a similar stance (which, indeed, does > > > not seem to be the case right now) then anything linked to an > > > XFree86 library must be distributable under the terms of the XFree86 > > > license. That case would add somewhat deeper problems than simple > > > license incompatibility; it would mean no program could link against > > > both Xlib and a GPL'd library. This would seem to make it impossible > > > to distribute Qt, for example. > > > > > > If XFree86 does not consider linking to create a derived work which > > > must carry the same restrictions as those in the library, then it > > > does not seem there is a problem; an application linking against Qt > > > and Xlib could be solely under the GPL. Or am I off my rocker here? > > > > > > Is it likely that the XFree86 Project will take that stance on > > > linking? > > > > The opinion of the XFree86 project is irrelevant. It is the licenses > > on GPLed works that would be violated, not the license on XFree86, so > > it's the interpretation of the authors of the GPLed works that counts. > > I don't quite see how this is so. If the XFree86 Project were to say- > theoretically- something like "linking dynamically to an XFree86 library > does not constitute a derived work for the purposes of the XFree86 > license" Nothing that you do along these lines will affect the definition of a derived work for the purposes of the GPL. It is the license of the GPLed works that is being violated, not the license of XFree86. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature