On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 01:14:51 -0500 "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You wanna write an app for our OS? Ask our permission first. Thank > > you. > > If you license your code under a Free Software license, then you > recived that permission[0]. The FSF doesn't care for people who wish > to restrict users of their freedom; it has the opposite goal, to > protect those freedoms for past and future generations. And the GPL > is the tool to achive this goal. Don't get me wrong - I subscribe to (what I perceive to be) the goals of Free Software. I cannot understand the apparent obsession with equating dynamic linking with preparing a derivative work, as achieving that goal would be, IMHO, a significant reduction in the rights currently available to the users of any Free or non-Free OS, independent of the license terms. > As for what the licencing terms of a non-free operating system are I > wouldn't know since I don't use non-free software to begin with. It doesn't matter as long as the copyright statutes are not interpreted or changed to support a very broad interpretation of the concept of a derivative work. This, IMHO, is exactly what would happen if the FSF's interpretation of the effect of dynamic linking were to prevail. > [0]: Many projects, specially system parts of GNU, have special > clauses or use the Lesser GPL to allow mixing with non-free software. Which only makes persuing the dynamic linking issue even more futile. Kind regards, -- Stefaan -- As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning, and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
