Re: More GPL questions

[David Kastrup]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org> writes:

>    >    This example program would dynamically link to both Qt and my
>    >    sdk's library.
>    >
>    > This would make this non-free SDK library a derivate of Qt and
>    > the example program.
>
>    Of course this is nonsense.  Alfred confuses several different
>    issues that lead to a particular result.
>
> The GPL FAQ agrees with me.
>
> | You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to
> | build a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your
> | program mean I have to GPL my program?
>
> | Yes.

Well, it is sort of amusing that you quote a passage that clearly
contradicts what you say.  "non-free SDK library" is not the same as
"my program".  Very obviously so, since "non-free" is only a concern
when the library is copyrighted by someone else.  If it is your own
library, obviously it is not "non-free" to you.

So indeed, the cited FAQ entry does not at all support your point.

>    While the SDK library is not derived from Qt, the complete
>    example program is derived from both SDK library and Qt.
>
> If the SDK library links to a GPL library/program, then it becomes a
> deriviate work.

Rubbish.  An independently created work never becomes a "deriviate"
from something else just because something else is created for the
purpose of using preexisting work.

> There is not much to argue about.  Please read the GPL FAQ, and
> please read the GPL.

Fortunately, neither of them claim utter nonsense like that.

>    So the net effect is that you have a problem, even though it is
>    different from the problem Alfred proposes.
>
> Simply false, please refrain from spreading lies.

That is your prerequisite, though probably not deliberately.  You just
take your mistaken interpretations of GPL and GPL FAQ, make yourself
believe them out of some twisted sense of loyalty, and then try to
spread what you made yourself believe.

Unfortunately, you are not doing your cause and your heros a favor in
that manner.  And it is not helped by your refusal to actually switch
your brain on instead of regurgitating what you somehow construed your
references to state.  "Wait, I must have got that wrong" is something
that never occurs to you.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum