On 2005-02-08, Luke Skywalker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Now, that's not to say that they are correct in their
>>interpretation of the GPL's terms. In fact, if I had to bet on
>>an outcome, I'd probably wager that the court would hold that
>>only static linking would force the program as a whole to
>>follow the GPL terms. However, I certainly don't have the money
>>to pony up to run a test case. Consequently, I try to follow
>>the wishes of the copyright holder.
>
> It's strange that something so central hasn't been clarified
> yet, but maybe it's part of the changes meant for V.3.
It's been made quite clear what the intention of the FSF is
in regard to static linking. Trolltech also made their
intentions crystal clear.
> When you think about it, it'd be like banning any
> closed-source apps from being developed for Linux, since any
> application makes syscalls to the kernel
Wrong. The kernel license _explicitly_ allows non GPL'd
programs to make calles via the published syscall API.
> and its libraries.
Wrong again. First, the kernel does own any libraries. Second,
the libraries to which you refer are under the LGPL and other
licenses which explicitly allows distribution of non-GPL'd
programs that are linked dynamically with the libraries.
> But the fact is
Fact? You seem to be very short on facts and are mostly just
making up shit as you go.
> that there are now closed-source apps for that platform, and
> are considered legit since those apps don't include code from
> the kernel, but instead, merely make calls to binary objects.
True, but moot.
> I fail to see the difference between making calls to the
> kernel API and making calls to Qt libraries.
BECAUSE IN THE KERNEL KERNEL COPYING FILE LINUS SAYS:
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that
use kernel services by normal system calls - this is
merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does
*not* fall under the heading of "derived work". Also note
that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to
(the Linux kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who
actually wrote it.
AND TROLLTECH SAYS:
Users who want to donate their source code to the Open
Source community can use the Open Source version and must
license their software under the GPL. Users who write
commercial proprietary software must purchase a license and
may freely choose how to license and profit from their
software.
Spare us your clueless, junior-high legal analyses and just do
what's right: obey the wishes of the owners of the copyrights
in question. They've made their intentions 100% clear, and if
you try to worm your way around them, you're dishonorable,
theiving scum.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I know things about
at TROY DONAHUE that can't
visi.com even be PRINTED!!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
