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. First of all, the GNU GPL is not viral. You are free to not accept it. Secondly, Rui is simply confused, most probobly not knowing that BFD is part of the GNU projetc, and that the FSF is the copyright holder. One cannot remeber what every tiny bit of software is part of. However it still seems odd that a GNU Project author would even support a proprietary project... He didn't. All Rui noted was that the copyright holder (not knowing that it was the FSF) could have licnesed the program under a proprietary license. This is a simple fact. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
