--On Sun, Apr 26, 1998 1:46 pm -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> As an aside, I am beggining to think that we need a better license, from a >> legal perspective, because with all the issues of shared libraries, >> "essential parts", and who knows what else, if someone would really try to >> challange the GPL in a court, I don't know if it would stand up. >> >> Shaya > > Very good point!
Indeed, if you think about it, this is all very silly. It is perfectly legal, apparently, to have a GPLed program use (e.g. shell out to) a commercial piece of software. It has to be - to disallow this would be very stupid indeed. And indeed, the whole idea of have standard APIs for program communication (like SQL, although that's a bad example because there's no real standard for how to actually send the queries) is that, I, the user, can choose which programs (which RDBMS, for example) to use. Now, conceptually, there is no difference between shelling out to a program, and dynamically linking a library. The difference is an implementation detail, not a fundamental one. The whole thing makes little sense to me. The LGPL seems a more reasonable license for a future where software is expected to be more 'component' and 'module' based. Jules /----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\ | Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd | | Jules aka | | Richmond, Surrey | | Julian Bean | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TW9 2TF *UK* | +----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+ | War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. | | When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. | \----------------------------------------------------------------------/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
