On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 14:54 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > I've explained that the GPL prevents me from sharing original work
> > that links to both GPL and non-GPL libraries.
>
> And I've explained that it doesn't, and asked you to cite the passage
> of the GPL that prevents you from doing it. You haven't bothered to
> do it, and instead decided to keep insisting in this nonsensical
> claim. Please stop spreading lies. We're past the point in which you
> could claim ignorance as to this point.
Wait--Alexandre, are you saying that I could take a GPL library and,
say, a CPL[1] library, write a program that links to both libraries to
create new functionality and legally distribute source code or a
statically or dynamically linked executable version of my program
licensed under either the GPL or the CPL? How about the LGPL and the
CPL?
Please explain in detail with appropriate pointers to text from the
GPL/LGPL showing how it permits this. I am not joining the argument on
either side here--I am genuinely interested in the answer. I've long
thought Les was right on this point, but I'd love to be proved wrong.
Thanks very much.
[1] The Common Public License is a free software license (yes, the FSF
says it's a free software license) that the FSF considers incompatible
with both GPLv2 and GPLv3.
--
Matthew Saltzman
Clemson University Math Sciences
mjs AT clemson DOT edu
http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
