Alan M. Evans wrote:
> In the GPL's reckoning, the proprietary library is a derived work of the
> GPL library. It doesn't matter that the GPL library is for TCP
> networking and the proprietary library is for low-level access to a
> video chip. This is the loosest definition of "derived work" that I can
> imagine.
Right. The GPL seeks to prevent any such inclusion of proprietary code. It's
not a downfall of the GPL; its the GPL's main goal: Ensuring the permanent
Freedom of the code and any derivations thereof. If you want to base your GPL
code on another library, just make sure that the other library is Free and
GPL-compatible and that problem goes away.
> In the real world, developers often don't have a choice about C. But
> they do have a choice about A. It's unfortunate that developers that
> might otherwise support free software any way they can end up not being
> able to at all.
Short term advantages in proprietary software do *not* support Free software
and, to the contrary, only serve to harm it in the long run.
--
Peter Gordon (codergeek42)
This message was sent through a webmail
interface, and thus not signed.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
