On Tuesday 14 March 2000, at 23 h 6, the keyboard of Fabien Ninoles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a good example. IMHO, even if I consider such a client not free (because > it depends on a non-free server), the client itself is considered DFSG > compliant. In this specific case, I was mostly interested by the GPL (is it legal or is it a violation of the GPL) and not by the DFSG. > making a library link is close enough to be considered a true dependance > but every other communication link are simply fair use of the program. OK, but I've not found this distinction, this line you draw, in the GPL. > This lead to some problem where you can use a GPL library if you put > a GPL scripting interface over it and use the script interface in a > non-GPL program. ... > which let you say that such a > program is free if it achieve all its functionalities without > depending on any non-free components. Bad criteria, since it depends on a third party. Let's assume I write a not-GPL-compatible interface whose sole purpose is to run a program. It popens a GPL program. It is illegal. Now, someone else, unrelated with me, write a command-line-compatible non-GPL program and suddenly my interface is legal?
