On Thu, 2002-05-16 at 01:16, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:44:55AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: > > On Thu, 2002-05-16 at 00:30, Brian May wrote: > > > 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... > > > > There's the rub. Point two talks about your code, not someone else's. > > Notice the second word in point 2 for evidence. > > Point two is saying that people (other than the copyright holder) might > infer that permission is implicit, which is what he's referring to, I > think.
Perhaps. I took them to imply modification of the code in question to link to the incompatible library. IOW, if A is the copyright holder to a (GPL), and a must link to b (old BSD), then B can assume that point 2 holds. However, if A writes a, and B modifies a to require b (when a didn't require b before), then point 3 must hold, for B and everyone else. So, the clauses don't contradict each other. > (I agree with Branden's response.) That's another way to look at it. I think the best conclusion we can come up with is that the advice in point 2 is dubious and badly worded. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
