Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 11:18:15AM +0100, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > > They may be worried about whether dynamic linking against their > > software creates a derivative work. With that language, they try to > > take away that worry. > > But they can't do that (at least not in any consistent way).
Well, you can always make exceptions to the GPL (like the exception in the eCos license). And publicly saying "I believe that the term 'derivative work' should be interpreted as follows" surely has some effect? > Now, if what they mean is "this is available under the GPL once it's > been linked against something GPL-compatible, but if you stop linking > against it, it's *still* available under the GPL", then that's fine. That's what they are saying. I think they were trying to say "if you want to link your software against ours, yours has to be GPL" but it's a very strange wording. Not the strangest claim about the GPL I've seen by far though. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
