RE: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
** Raul ::
> On 8/2/05, Michael K. Edwards <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > I'm just telling you how it looks to me, and pointing you to where I
> > got what evidence I have so that you can judge for yourself. The FSF
> > is notoriously unforthcoming about their financial dealings, and the
> > cash flows involved are not chump change (see the numbers disclosed by
> > Jamie Zawinski in the Lucid Emacs saga). Whether or not you think RMS
> > and Eben Moglen are cashing in personally (about which I have no
> > evidence), if you are willing to take their uncorroborated claims
> > about the legal strategy at the heart of their enterprise at face
> > value, you are a more trusting man than I.
> This sounds like something appropriate for the scandal column of a
> tabloid. But what's the relevance of this issue to debian-legal?
IMHO its relevance to d-l is that, if such suspicions are indeed founded, the FSF GPL FAQ should not be taken by face value and that Debian should re-evaluate its position about GPL and linking.