Re: Linking clause deleted from GNAT GPL
Henning Makholm wrote:
> In any case, the language in this exception is sloppy. It is never the
> case that something external to me can by itself _cause_ an executable
> in which I have copyright interest to "be covered by the GPL".
Right. It looks like a sloppy adaptation of the FSF's own
linking exception (which they recommend you use instead of the LGPL).
Had it said something like "requires you to place under the GPL"
it would have been a lot better.
> for my work to be granted nonetheless. The fact that I will be liable
> to the original licensor for having created copies without permission,
> does not cause a license grant _from me_ to magically spring into
> These sloppities lend support to the hypothesis that the exception was
> not drafted by the FSF's usual license advisors. Is it really FSF
I have no idea.
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/