On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:09:58 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 09:38:19AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > But we don't really want to set up a copyright assignment regime, so > > > the FSF's insistence on waving the preliminary injunction club at > > > unwary linkers is a red flag. > > Let's consider a release of libFoo under terms guided by your > interpretation of the GPL and cases like lexmark and lotus v. borland: > > We are releasing libFoo under the GPL, but hold the interface and > header files to be public domain. > > In GPL terms, the implementation -- the *.c files, and files built > from those .c files at compile time -- are the Program, and must be > distributed only under the terms of the GPL while the headers -- *.h > files and build scripts -- may be incoroprated in anyone's program > without copyright being an issue. > > In GPL terms, linking your program with libFoo is mere aggregation, > and using your program in conjunction with libFoo constitutes running > libFoo as a program. > > The GPL requirements for source code release when you modify libFoo > only apply to the implementation itself -- not to programs which happen > to use libFoo. > > As near as I can tell, this kind of release notice would satisfy the > concerns your company has about the GPL. > > If that's not the case, I think you need to better understand the nature > of your company's concerns.
Great. Except either this interpretation isn't part of the contract, and therefore doesn't bind other contributors, or else I've created another little almost-GPL fiefdom, and any bit of code that turns out to have been copied from another project with a non-matching GPL exemption gives the copyright holder leverage to sue me with the FSF's help. This is clearly well intentioned, but it's no substitute for a solid legal precedent or a change of heart from the FSF. Cheers, - Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
