Re: Dumb Licensing Questions

[Greg Troxel <gdt@lexort.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1102 bytes --]


<tomas@tuxteam.de> writes:

> It's clear that there are different standpoints. The linking thing (dynamic
> or static) hasn't, AFAIK, tested in court. It's quite possible that different
> courts reach different conclusions (in the same or different places in the
> world). It's even possible (gasp!) that the legal interpretations of things
> change over time.
 
Completely agreed.   And, to expand, copyright law doesn't talk about
linking, it talks about things like "derived works", which leads to "if you
do X, is it a derived work".

> If I were you, I'd just comply with what the FSF proposes, and that is pretty
> clear [1]. Any reasons not to comply with that?

A very good point.  Stepping back, there is a question of what's legal
and where the line is.  But there's another question of what individuals
and the Free Software community think of as good behavior.  If someone
writes software and makes it available under a Free License, politenss
at least demands that those who copy/modify/distribute/use the software
respect their wishes about what the license means.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 162 bytes --]