Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Sven Luther wrote: >> And, were is the problem ? The GPL is especifically against >> distributing the result of the linking of GPLed code with >> uncompatible code. > > No. The GPL restricts the creation of derivative works. Linking is > considered by the FSF to be a case of derivation, but it is certainly > not the only way that a derived work can be generated.
And since when does the FSF have the final word in legal matters. >> It doesn't say anything against distributing GPLed and GPL >> incompatible but free code in the same tarball or package, as long >> as it is not linked together. > > From §2: > > But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole > which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the > whole must be on the terms of this License, > > As you can see, linking is not the metric used. Only derivation is. Yes, and I say linking isn't a case of derivation. I can easily find any number of people that disagree with RMS about this, so who's right? >> If that was not the case, then all our GPLed packages would have >> been undistributable, since at least the GPL document itself is >> clearly non-free. > > No. The license itself is _not_ a work based on a GPLed > program. Therefore its aggregation with the work in question isn't at > issue. Furthermore, it's likely that licenses may not actually be > copyrightable... and regardless, licenses generally exist in a gray > area anyway, so they're not a particularly useful example. You guys seem to dismiss any argument you don't like as belonging to a gray area. *Everything* about licenses or other legalities is gray. >> I don't know, i have the impression that the response i am getting >> here are not based on legal theory and reading and interpreting the >> licence, but on some pre-decision made because of that RMS quote. > > The question is: Is the code a derivative work of Emacs? RMS seems to > believe that it is. As the FSF is the group in a position to prosecute > such a case, we generally will acquiese to their viewpoint unless you So why don't you just blindly believe it when (possibly evil) companies make claims beneficial to them? -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]
