paul cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 2004-01-31 14:01:42 +0000 MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 2004-01-30 19:31:44 +0000 paul cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > If XFree86 does not consider linking to create a derived work which >> > must carry the same restrictions as those in the library, then it >> > does not seem there is a problem; an application linking against Qt >> > and Xlib could be solely under the GPL. Or am I off my rocker here? >> >> Does XFree86 have some extensions that they developed? If so, how can >> it not be a derived work if you use those XFree86 extensions? It would >> be a mess, looking at each application. > > Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that the FSF's opinion > on this is not universal.
You are definitely not wrong. It's just the Debian folks that believe the faintest whisper from the FSF as were it the word of God. > That is, it is not an irrational view that dynamically linking to a > library is only _using_ that library, not creating a derived work > from it. > > It seems to me rather like using a command line utility in a script. One > might make wide use of GNU grep extensively in a proprietary program, > for example, and do so without affecting or worrying about the license > on grep at all. > > As another example, a command line program could wrap the functionality > of nearly all libraries. If someone didn't want to link a program with > libcurl, one would simply invoke /usr/bin/curl and get much of the same > functionality. Should these be different actions from a licensing > standpoint? Good point. > As always, let me know if I seem to be on crack. You seem to be unusually sane for this list. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]