Florian Weimer <[email protected]> writes: > * Hyman Rosen: > >> I don't understand what you mean here. The GPL purports to be a >> grant of extra rights beyond those allowed by copyright law. I >> assert that an executable program which dynamically links to >> libraries is not affected by the copyrights of those libraries, > > This is a view not shared by many software companies. If your > interpretation turns out to be correct, many companies will join the > FSF for a copyright extension. However, the prevailing feeling right > now is that dynamic linking already creates a derivative work. > > Still remember the times when the FSF was against interface > copyrights? *sigh*
Who says they aren't now? The sole point of the GPL is to use the weapons of the opponents to create something which is _effectively_ free. And obviously, it makes no sense not to do this as far as those weapons reach. When the legislature bans what you choose to label "interface copyrights", both necessity and possibility of letting the GPL reach there will cease. The FSF will certainly be glad if that is the case. As long as it isn't, there is no point in ceding the field. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
