On Thu, 2002-05-16 at 14:54, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:46:16PM +1000, Brian May wrote: > > I find this rather odd, see: > > > > <URL:http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#InterpreterIncompat>, part > > 2. > > > > Of course, you could argue that point 2 conflicts with point 3... > > I disagree that they conflict, but I think point 2 is dangerous advice > to give, and prone to abuse. > > Can you elaborate your reasoning, please?
2. If you wrote and released the program under the GPL, and you designed it specifically to work with those facilities, people can take that as an implicit exception permitting them to link it with those facilities. But if that is what you intend, it is better to say so explicitly. 3. You can't take someone else's GPL-covered code and use it that way, or add such exceptions to it. Only the copyright holders of that code can add the exception. Point 2 says you can take someone else's code and implicit permission exists that you can link it with required 3rd party libraries, even if they are not GPL compatible (at least that is the way I read it: "people can take that is an implicit exception"). Point 3 says you can't take someone else's code and use it that way. Point 3 seems to directly contradict point 2. -- Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
