[ GNU folks: this is in regard to <URL:http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#InterpreterIncompat> ]
[ Brian: you asked for private Cc's, but I did not. Please do not Cc me. ] On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 03:30:36PM +1000, Brian May wrote: > On Thu, 2002-05-16 at 14:54, Branden Robinson wrote: > > Can you elaborate your reasoning, please? > 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. I think there is an implicit "if you do not have a reasonable belief that point 2 above applies" in point. The advice appears to have an implied if-then-else-if-then-else structure. More to the point, there is too much left implicit. Your analysis could be correct, but generally the FSF things things through a bit more carefully than your interpretation would suggest. All the FSF needs to do to rectify this is reword the answer to spell things out. (Still, in my opinion, point 2 should be removed. It may subject people to harassment and/or liability from copyright holders who don't behave as nicely as the FSF.) -- G. Branden Robinson | No math genius, eh? Then perhaps Debian GNU/Linux | you could explain to me where you [EMAIL PROTECTED] | got these... PENROSE TILES! http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Stephen R. Notley
pgpbn5kl4eeIs.pgp
Description: PGP signature
