RE: [OctDev] [gnu.org #432927] Can a Windows installer include both VC++ libs and GPLed libs?

[Kustaa Nyholm via RT]

From: Jaroslav Hajek via RT address@hidden

>Such a formulation is too vague to be of any use. Try making it more
>explicit and you'll see it's not really that easy.

Agree that it is not easy writing good legal language, I won't try it,
and I was not offering this as "formulation" but I'm not convinced
that something like that could have served the goals better, but
alas now it is too late. What is released under GPL is released
under GPL.

>> Like in this instance, the GPL seems to work against it's stated goals.
>
>I don't think so. I actually disagree with Brett in the sense that I
>think GPL 3 (not GPL 2) allows the distribution in question. But
>otherwise, I agree that System Library exception is to be kept narrow,
>for the precise reasons he stated.

I agree about keeping it narrow, but IMO this interpretation is too
narrow.  I'm convinced that the interpretation does not serve
the Free software movement as well as a slightly more lenient 
interpretation would. But that is just MO, it is not for me to decide.

>GPLed software needs to protect itself against proprietarization
>(that's the point of GPL) and some sacrifices seem necessary to
>achieve this goal. If you have a better idea for GPL4, preserving its
>main goals, share it with the FSF.

Sure, GPLed software needs to protect itself against proprietarization,
and sure sacrifices are necessary. However at that level however discussion
is pointless this sort of thinking has lead to real wars between nations. 
Like Peter Winsey said: "It seems that the first thing any principle
does is to kill somebody." Ends don't justify *all* means. A balance
needs to be struck and in my view there is a little inbalance here
that should have been corrected for better serve the goal, but

I appreciate that not everyone agrees and that is fine. Free software
in a free world and everyone can release what they please under
what they please and the users can pick and choose. That is great
about freedom, survival of the fittest.

>Every developer using GPL is supposed to read it and understand it. 
Read yes, but to understand it ... that is a tall order

> If he relies instead on what he's told from other sources, he does so at
>his own risk.
Relying on GPLed software is a risk anyway you look at it.

Talking to lawyers gets one the impression it couldn't be more vague
if it tried. And yet lawyers have been involved in drafting it. I guess
it all comes down to the limitations of words and language to
define and describe ideological concepts and goals.

> GPL is bound by its own wording; and
>only courts are entitled to resolve disputes that can't be resolved
>otherwise.

Indeed, hope it never comes to that,  getting a court, where you get
the best justice money can buy, to decide on free (as in free beer)
software sounds like bad idea.


cheers Kusti