Alan Mackenzie <a...@muc.de> writes: > Hi, Erik! > > It's good to talk to somebody with a name. :-) > > In gnu.misc.discuss Erik Funkenbusch <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote: >> The GPL is misunderstood on a daily basis by many people. In fact, >> even GPL advocates can't seem to come to a consensus over what it >> means, so how is any "normal" person supposed to know? > >> Here's an example. Some GPL advocates believe that dynamic linking >> is not covered by the GPL, while others (including the FSF) believe >> it is. > > Dynamic linking, along with static linking, compilation, > interpretation, profiling, and other specific techniques used by > hackers are not covered by the GPL - they're outside its scope, and > would be more of matter of patents than a copyright license, were they > patentable.
This has nothing to do with understanding or not understanding anything about the GPL. What is covered is a matter of copyright law. Which is the case with any software license or contract. Getting copyright law right is hard and a moving overly complex target, different in different countries. But that's hardly a fault with the GPL, let alone the FSF. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
