On Oct 12, 9:37 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 06:03:03AM -0700, Mike Cox wrote: > > I am still confused. Does mere linking make the result realy > > *contain* code from a GPL program? > > Most rational people consider it so, but you seem to want legal advice > so I hope you follow the sane reasoning of taking the license to a > lawyer and obtain a binding legal opinion. > > Otherwise, feel free to run the risks of getting fired or bankrupt. > > > How come they are allowed to do that but I am not? > > Are you sure they didn't get a proprietary license from the authors? > It could also be the case that they haven't been caught yet... >
I'd find it a little strange that a Free software author -- no, not just that, but one for the *GNU Project*, as I think "libbfd" is GNU -- would agree to a proprietary (ie. goes against the ideals of "Freedom") license, unless of course they realized that _their_ stuff would still be free as you could get the code for it from some place, eg they just gave a license that overrode the virality. However it still seems odd that a GNU Project author would even support a proprietary project... _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
