> It still holds. And telling your users to download the clojure.jar > doesn't change anything. The problem is not distributing something with > a GPL-incompatible license, but that simply using clojure and the > stdlibs makes it a derivated work. (I was in the same situation like > you and dropped a mail at the FSF licensing crew.) > > But there's a way to fix that issue. Here's the relevant part of the > FSF's reply:
The opinion of the FSF or their lawyers on how to interpret the GPL is not decisive. Other lawyers would surely be able to argue these issues differently. Also keep in mind that the FSF is not the owner of the software in question and thus not the licensor. Still, it would surely be less risky to interpret the GPL in a way which is consistent with FSF's interpretation. If you really want to avoid risks, the safest thing to do would be negotiate license contracts with the owners of all the components upon which your software depends, assuming this is feasible. -Tom Gordon --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
