On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, Wilfredo Sanchez wrote:
snip
Certainly the GPL has worked well here. Writing a compiler is
enough of a pain in the ass that dealing with the GPL, regardless of
your objections, is likely worthwhile.
The GPL has had many areas of success. I wonder, out of sheer
| Obviously, the GPL is aimed at being "user-protective" rather than
| "business-protective".
No. It's "author-protective". You write software. You want
people to use it (for whatever reasons), but you have certain
restrictions you use on usage to protect you as the author. This is
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:13:25 -0700
From: Wilfredo Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Do you mean by this that if the GPL were more specific in its
| allowances and prohibitions, it would make for more acceptance and a
| better license?
Most certainly. For starters, it should
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
For example, I'd submit that _reference_ is derivation where software is
concerned. If you call into my library from your program, it's a derived
work.
Then in your view, only GPL-compatible programs can be run under Linux?
--
John Cowan
Kyle Rose scripsit:
[T]he LGPL, the license under which the major libraries are
released, specifically allows non-free programs to link to binaries
under that license.
The kernel, however (which is just another library), is under the GPL.
I know that Linus explicitly states that the GPL's
John Cowan writes:
Kyle Rose scripsit:
[T]he LGPL, the license under which the major libraries are
released, specifically allows non-free programs to link to binaries
under that license.
The kernel, however (which is just another library), is under the GPL.
I know that Linus
Matthew C. Weigel writes:
On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Seth David Schoen wrote:
It could be viewed as an additional permission, making Linux
dual-licensed, except that Linus doesn't have authority to grant that
permission on behalf of all of the other developers -- who presumably have
the
| For example, I'd submit that _reference_ is derivation where
software is
| concerned. If you call into my library from your program, it's a
derived
| work. However, copyright law doesn't take that into account and is only
| concerned with copying.
And therein lies a serious problem,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Postulate that you write an application that works with a library full of
no-op stubs. That library just happens to match the interface of a GPL-ed
product I've written, and with that library it is a functioning product. Then
you ship that
From: Kyle Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unfortunately, as much as I love the GPL, I don't think this is
enforcable. Remember that the GPL covers only distribution, not use;
hence, if the distribution of a work linked against a library
interface (even that for which only a GPL'ed implementation
Postulate that you write an application that works with a library full of
no-op stubs. That library just happens to match the interface of a GPL-ed
product I've written, and with that library it is a functioning product. Then
you ship that application with the _intent_ that the user combine
11 matches
Mail list logo
