Re: XFree86 license difficulties
mru@kth.se (Måns Rullgård) writes:
> MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> writes:
>
>> On 2004-02-02 20:11:45 +0000 paul cannon <pik@debian.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that the FSF's
>>> opinion
>>> on this is not universal. That is, it is not an irrational view that
>>> dynamically linking to a library is only _using_ that library, not
>>> creating a derived work from it.
>>
>> Some works with copyright held by FSF are affected by this, so their
>> published opinion probably would count.
>
> The copyright owner does not have the right to dictate rules
> contradicting copyright law. Not even if he believes copyright law is
> immoral.
True. But rights or no, it is important to be polite where we can.
I don't believe the FSF's interpretation is correct, but that really
doesn't matter. I don't believe University of Washinton's
interpretation of the Pine license is correct either, nor do I believe
MicroSoft can claim the rights on which they insist.
But it is polite for me to respect these authors' wishes with respect
to their works. What gains I would receive from rudeness to not
balance out the cost of that rudeness to society.
>> However, if there is a good reason why the result of a compile that
>> included a file from a work, which appears only in that work because
>> it is an extension unique to that work, is not derived from that work,
>> I'm interested to read it.
>
> You seem to be forgetting that dynamic linking doesn't include any
> files.
More, dynamic linking is arguably a method of operation.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: