Re: GPL traitor !

[David Kastrup]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:

> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> Or maybe it's the FSF that doesn't understand it.
>
> It's the latter. The FSF (probably deliberately) tells an untruth
> when it claims that the GPL applies to a dynamically linked program
> or to separately distributed plugins.

It tells no such thing.  It says _copyright_ may apply.  If you take a
look at the GPL FAQ, they use the wording "we believe".

> They would clearly like it to apply, but it does not.

They would clearly like not to have copyright apply to this situation,
since then they would not need the GPL to provide its copyleft mechanism
there.  As long as there is no reliable precedence for those cases
however, they would be foolish to voluntarily forfeit the possibility of
the GPL as a countermeasure of other people making claims in that area.

-- 
David Kastrup