On Jul 27, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> John A. Hacker develops, from scratch, a program that contains two >> source files: lib.c and main.c. [...] John A. publishes the >> whole, named gnothing, under the GPLv2+, and never publishes lib.c >> in any other way. [...] >> Evelyn D. Scent maintains a non-Free fork of bsdown called macrash, so >> she takes this new release containing lib.c, merges the add-on >> features she maintains, and publishes a new release, under the usual >> restrictive EULA, known to be compatible with the 3-clause BSD >> license. > No reason to ask - the people using the alternative licenses have no > need to agree to the GPL terms for the work as a whole that includes > GPL-encumbered parts. And yet in this same e-mail you were claiming that the GPL would somehow deprive people of the additional permissions granted by the mBSD header, because of a misreading of section 2 that, per what you say above, you don't really believe. > And the FSF does routinely claim that a dependency on > a non-GPL-compatible library is a violation if the functions are > unique and no GPL-compatible implementation exists. Show me. I'm pretty sure you're getting it backwards: the case you cited is one of GPLed library and derived program distributed under an incompatible license. We're talking about GPLed sources derived from non-GPLed libraries. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
