[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

softwarecombinations paper Re: LGPL vs. GPL

From: Ciaran O'Riordan
Subject: softwarecombinations paper Re: LGPL vs. GPL
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:32:39 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <> writes:
> Now read 

I just skimmed it.

I didn't find what the author is trying to prove, but I know that most of
your mails about the GPL are claims that it isn't enforceable or doesn't
work how FSF say it works.  One simple piece of data that weakens your
position is the paper's date: April 2006.

If this paper gave any support to your anti-GPL arguments, don't you think
that after more than 2 years, someone with finances or connections and an
anti-GPL agenda like Microsoft, SCO, or an attention-seeking
journalist/controversialist/lawyer would have jumped on it?  But no one did.
It's been ignored.  So it's really, really unlikely this paper provides
credible support to your usual agenda.

>From my skim, I saw various points suggesting that the method of linking
(dynamic vs. static), or the mixing of outputs, or hyperlinking have no
effect on whether or not something is a derived work.  The author is
probably right, and this just supports what FSF has been saying for years.
FSF's position, IIRC, IANAL, is that being a derived work is something that
is decided based on the author's actions and intentions at the time of
writing the software - not at the later times of someone running or linking
the software.

If I've missed something meaningful in the paper, could you quote it here?

CiarĂ¡n O'Riordan, +32 477 36 44 19,

Support free software, join FSFE's Fellowship:

Recent blog entries:

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]