--- Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But, when people use the word "free," even within a particular
> context, anyone would be able to understand what that person was
> talking about within an acceptable level of error.
>
> I don't think so -- that is too much to ask. In any area, the
> meaning of freedom involves filling in details which are not
> obvious in advance. It seems simple while you stay at the abstract
> level; it becomes hard when you address the details.
You're confusing full understanding with an intuitive meaning. People
can "get" what's going on at a high level, without having a "wtf" when
looking at the details, because the spirit of "free" is retained. The
details merely being the implements.
But, with your usage, this is not retained, AGAIN, see below.
> But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can
> statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still
> retain my freedom to BSD license my code.
>
> Under the usual interpretation of the revised BSD license, this is
> straightforward. You put the revised BSD license on your file, you
> package it with the source of the GPL-covered library, and you
> release it all. The combination, as a whole, is under the GNU GPL,
> but anyone can use code from your file under the revised BSD license.
>
> This is lawful because the revised BSD license permits users to
> release the combination under the GPL.
Thus the combined work, THE WHOLE POINT OF WRITING IT, is under the
GPL. That IS what you just said. Which is forcing me into a license
for my project that I don't want. How does that equal freedom for me
again?
Are you deliberately missing the point?
best regards,
Reid Nichol
President Bush says:
War Is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
