On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, John Cowan wrote: > > The FSF takes the position that if you distribute software that can only be > > run by linking it with something GPLed, your software is a derivative work of > > the GPLed software even if you don't include any parts of it. > What if there were a non-GPL and a GPL implementation written to the same > interface definition? The FSF's position, as far as I know, is that if there exist two implementations, and one of them is not GPL, then the work can't be said to be derivative of the GPL version. It is only derivative if the GPL one is the only possible one to link with. GNU readline is probably the most infamous case of the FSF taking this position.
- How To Break The GPL John Cowan
- Re: How To Break The GPL pvolcko
- Re: How To Break The GPL Forrest J. Cavalier III
- Re: How To Break The GPL Mark Wells
- Re: How To Break The GPL Ken Arromdee
- Re: How To Break The GPL Justin Wells
- RE: How To Break The GPL Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
- Re: How To Break The GPL John Cowan
- Re: How To Break The GPL John Cowan
- Re: How To Break The GPL Ken Arromdee
- Re: How To Break The GPL David Johnson
- Re: How To Break The GPL Ian Lance Taylor
- RE: How To Break The GPL Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
- Re: How To Break The GPL Forrest J. Cavalier III
- Re: How To Break The GPL John Cowan
- Re: How To Break The GPL Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: How To Break The GPL John Cowan
- RE: How To Break The GPL Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
- Re: How To Break The GPL John Cowan
- RE: How To Break The GPL Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.