Picking a license
in [Python]
|
Prev: 2to3 issues with execfile on python 3.0 on files with encoding
Next: Extract a bordered, skewed rectangle from an image
From: Paul Boddie on 12 May 2010 14:00 On 12 Mai, 16:10, Patrick Maupin <pmau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 12, 7:10 am, Paul Boddie <p...(a)boddie.org.uk> wrote: > > What the licence asks you to do and what the author of the licence > > wants you to do are two separate things. > > But the whole context was about what RMS wanted me to do and you > disagreed! What RMS as an activist wants is that everyone releases GPL-licensed code, except where permissively licensed code might encourage open standards proliferation. What RMS the licence author requests is that your work is licensed in a way which is compatible with the GPL. [...] > > I wrote "the software" above when I meant "your software", but I have > > not pretended that the whole system need not be available under the > > GPL. > > You say you "have not pretended" but you've never mentioned that it > would or even acknowledged the correctness of my assertions about this > until now, just claiming that what I said was false. Well, excuse me! I think we both know that combining something with a GPL-licensed work and redistributing it means that the "four freedoms" must apply, and that recipients get the work under the GPL. You can insist that I said something else, but I spell it out in this post: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/034fbc8289a4d555 Specifically the part... "Not least because people are only obliged to make their work available under a GPL-compatible licence so that people who are using the combined work may redistribute it under the GPL." In case you don't find this satisfactory, "their work" means "their own work". [...] > > More loaded terms to replace the last set, I see. > > IMO "Bullying" is the correct term for some of Stallman's actions, > including in the clisp debacle. I knew you wouldn't agree -- that's > why YMMV. And I'm not "replacing" any set of terms -- part of the > "bullying" is the "forcing." Stallman gave Haible the choice to not use readline. Maybe that wasn't very nice, and maybe Haible didn't believe that using readline would incur any consequences, but that's what you get when you use a copyrighted work. Your language is all about portraying the FSF as operating in some kind of illegal or unethical way. I guess you believe that if you throw enough mud, some of it will stick. > > Again, what I meant was "your software", not the whole software > > system. As I more or less state below... > > BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER. Once the whole package is licensed under the > GPL, for someone downstream to try to scrape the GPL off and get to > just the underlying non-GPL parts is harder than scraping bubblegum > off your shoe on a hot Texas day. Big deal. If a project wants to avoid even looking at GPL-licensed code for the reason that someone might end up getting the code under the GPL, and that they're so bothered that the opportunity to not grant such recipients the privileges of modification and redistribution disappears because of the GPL, then that's their problem. [WebKit is LGPL-licensed but KHTML linked to GPL-licensed code, shouldn't WebKit be GPL-licensed?] > I didn't make that claim and have never heard of that claim, and I'm > not at all sure of the relevance of whatever you're trying to explain > to the licensing of an overall program, rather than a library. The point is precisely the one you concede about a project needing to be licensed compatibly with the GPL, even though to use the combined work, the result will be GPL-licensed. [...] > > All RMS and the FSF's lawyers wanted was that the CNRI licences be GPL- > > compatible. There are actually various aspects of GPL-compatibility > > that are beneficial, even if you don't like the copyleft-style > > clauses, so I don't think it was to the detriment of the Python > > project. > > And I don't have a problem with that. Honestly I don't. But as far > as I'm concerned, although you finally admitted it, a lot of the > dancing around appeared to be an attempt to disprove my valid > assertion that a combined work would have to be distributed under the > GPL, and that no other free software license claims sovereignty over > the entire work. I never denied that the GPL would apply to the combined work! Read the stuff I quote above. Your *own* stuff (for example, the WebKit stuff) can be licensed compatibly with the GPL (for example, the LGPL), but the *whole* thing as it lands in the user's lap will be GPL-licensed. [...] > > Well, that may not be a judgement shared by the authors. There are > > numerous tools and components which do dull jobs and whose maintenance > > is tedious and generally unrewarding, but that doesn't mean that such > > investment is worth nothing in the face of someone else's so-very- > > topical high-profile project. > > OK, so what you're saying is that readline is so dull and unrewarding > that the only reason to bother writing it is to reel people in to the > GPL? No, what I am saying is that a fair amount of work might have gone into making readline, even though it may not be shiny enough by some people's standards, but that doesn't mean you can disregard the authors' wishes by insisting that is it "trivial" or unimportant, whereas your own software somehow is important. As soon as you go down that road, everyone can start belittling the works of others purely so that they can start disregarding the terms which regulate those works, and then it's a free-for-all. [...] > > Well, if people are making use of "some good code found for free on > > the Internet", particularly if they are corporations like Cisco, and > > I'm not talking about Cisco. I'm talking about people like the author > of clisp, and you well know it. Well, Cisco seemed to have a bit of a problem. Maybe they thought that this "free stuff" was just a commodity, too. > > they choose not to understand things like copyright and licensing, or > > they think "all rights reserved" is just a catchy slogan, then they > > probably shouldn't be building larger works and redistributing them. > > Well, the FSF seems to have softened its stance, but at the time, > clisp wasn't even distributing readline. That's why I use terms like > "bullying". The bully now knows it's harder to get away with that > particular lie, but he's still scheming about how to reel more people > in. What the FSF did was regrettable if the author didn't feel he had a choice. I have no idea what went on beyond what the public mailing list record can reveal. Paul
From: Patrick Maupin on 12 May 2010 14:29 On May 12, 12:17 pm, Paul Boddie <p...(a)boddie.org.uk> wrote: > On 12 Mai, 16:45, Patrick Maupin <pmau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 12, 7:43 am, Paul Boddie <p...(a)boddie.org.uk> wrote: > > > Thus, "owned my soul" joins "holy war" and "Bin Laden" on the list. > > > That rhetorical toolbox is looking pretty empty at this point. > > > Not emptier than you analogy toolbox. This is really a pretty stupid > > analogy, but I guess my lame attempts at showing that are wasted. > > Yes they are. The analogy was to point out that someone can really > want something, but if they are not prepared to accept the "price" of > acquiring it, then there is no point in them whining about someone > withholding that thing from them, or whining about someone "forcing" > them to do stuff, especially when there is clearly no "force" involved > at all. But nobody's whining about the strings attached to the software. Just pointing out why they sometimes won't use a particular piece of software, and pointing out that some other people (e.g. random Ubuntu users) might not understand the full cost of the software, and that that is because the cost of the software has been deliberately obscured by using unqualified terms like all-caps "Free Software." > > > He isn't, though. He's telling you that you can't force other people > > > to lick the chocolate off whatever "Reese's Peanut Butter cups" are, > > > rather than actually eating the combination of the two, when you offer > > > such a combination to someone else. > > > No. That's not what is happening, and you've now officially stretched > > the analogy way past the breaking point. In any case, he's telling me > > I have to give the recipe for my homemade peanut butter. > > If you want to redefine the basis of the analogy, then you can talk > about the recipe all you like, yes. Otherwise, no: the analogy was > only about people whining about not being able to get stuff with no > strings attached. I could swap that analogy with one that has someone > really wanting a ride on a bus, or wanting to go to the moon, where > they don't like it when someone tells them that they can't get do that > stuff without agreeing to something or other first. Feel free to start > discussing the shape of the bus ticket or who pays for spacesuits if > you want, but to say, "I really want to use that thing, but that nasty > man has licensed it under the GPL" is whining in precisely the same > way as featured in the analogy. Oh, no wonder I didn't understand what you were getting at with the analogy. I'm not whining about people licensing stuff under the GPL, just about its apologists pretending there are never any negative consequences from it. > > > Is the Creative Commons share- > > > alike clause just as objectionable to you, because it's that principle > > > we're talking about here? > > > I have explained that, in some cases, I will use GPL software, and in > > other cases I won't, and tried to explain why and what the difference > > is. Anybody can re-read my posts and figure out that the same might > > apply to the various Creative Commons licenses. > > So it is objectionable to you as well, then. I somehow knew that is how you would read my posts, but no. It's people like you putting words in my month that is objectionable. > [...] > > > > Yes, he's making everyone commit to sharing, and yes, it's like a > > > snowball effect once people agree to join in. > > > Sorry, I sometimes have a hard time distinguishing the semantic > > difference between "make" and "force". Could you elucidate? > > Yes: once they've agreed to join in, they "have to" go along with the > whole scheme. Sorry, that is absolutely no different than what I originally said when I was first defending Aahz's use of the word "force" to Ben Finney back on the 7th: "Perhaps you feel "forces" is too loaded of a word. There is no question, however, that a copyright license can require that if you do "X" with some code, you must also do "Y". There is also no question that the GPL uses this capability in copyright law to require anybody who distributes a derivative work to provide the source. Thus, "forced to contribute back any changes" is definitely what happens once the decision is made to distribute said changes in object form." Both your "make" and my "force" mean "to compel." We've come full circle. The English language makes no real distinction between "making everyone commit" and "forcing everyone [to] commit". > > > But unless you hide that > > > commitment, no-one imposes anything on anyone. They can get their > > > chocolate elsewhere. They join in; they are not conscripted. > > > And I've already explained why, in some cases, someone might refuse > > the tastiest chocolate in the world to not join in. > > Well, great for them. I thought they were "forced" to join in. I guess > not. That's because you use selective quoting of "forced" and deliberately ignore the context it was used in. > > No, but copyright licenses are funny things, not like contracts where > > there is a meeting of the minds up front. For example, while the > > Ciscos of the world have no excuse, I bet a lot of people who download > > Ubuntu and make copies for their friends are unaware of this section > > of the GPL FAQ: > > > "I downloaded just the binary from the net. If I distribute copies, do > > I have to get the source and distribute that too? Yes. The general > > rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute the complete > > corresponding source code too. The exception for the case where you > > received a written offer for source code is quite limited." > > Yes, and that's why, when Mepis Linux were found not to be > distributing the sources, they had to go along with the above section. > And that's also why version 3 of the GPL has a clause about nominating > a party that will honour the obligation to provide source. But what's > your problem exactly? My problem, exactly, is that bothering Mepis, yet not bothering Joe Blow when he gives a copy to his friend, is exactly the kind of selective enforcement of copyright rights that Microsoft is accused of when they turn a blind eye to piracy in third-world countries. >The GPL applies to redistribution, and the > default state of a copyrighted work is that you don't have permission > to redistribute it, so before someone shares something they have to > know whether they are able to do so or not. And Joe Blow assumes that something that says "Free Software" means it. Sure he *should* read the copyright license, but you've already admitted he probably won't bother, and might not understand it if he does. > The various clauses are all there for their own reasons. If you don't > like them, don't use GPL-licensed software. I've already explained very carefully multiple times: 1) I often use GPL software, and don't have any problem with the license at all *as a user*. 2) I very seldom create stuff under the GPL because I don't like imposing those sorts of restrictions on software I am giving away; and 3) For stuff I create which is not under the GPL, to make sure that I can give it away without restrictions, I need to make sure that I am not incorporating any GPL software. Despite your opinion, there is nothing legally or morally wrong with me using GPL software (and not redistributing it) just because I happen to feel that (a) for my purposes, for most stuff I write, it happens to be the wrong license, (b) (especially historically) some of the practices used to insure proliferation of the GPL are ethically questionable, and (c) whenever these ethically questionable practices are discussed, quasi-religious apologists will take these questionable practices to the next level, by selective quoting and bad analogies and hinting at things without actually coming out and saying them, and all sorts of other debate tactics designed to confuse rather than enlighten. Regards, Pat
From: Lie Ryan on 12 May 2010 14:49 On 05/13/10 00:53, Patrick Maupin wrote: > On May 12, 2:19 am, Lie Ryan <lie.1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 05/12/10 06:50, Patrick Maupin wrote: >> >> >> >>> On May 11, 5:34 am, Paul Boddie <p...(a)boddie.org.uk> wrote: >>>> On 10 Mai, 20:36, Patrick Maupin <pmau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> The fact is, I know the man would force me to pay for the chocolate, so in >>>>> some cases that enters into the equation and keeps me from wanting the >>>>> chocolate. >> >>>> If the man said, "please take the chocolate, but I want you to share >>>> it with your friends", and you refused to do so because you couldn't >>>> accept that condition, would it be right to say, "that man is forcing >>>> me to share chocolate with my friends"? >> >>> But the thing is, he's *not* making me share the chocolate with any of >>> my friends. He's not even making me share my special peanut butter >>> and chocolate. What he's making me do is, if I give my peanut butter >>> and chocolate to one of my friends, he's making me make *that* friend >>> promise to share. I try not to impose obligations like that on my >>> friends, so obviously the "nice" man with the chocolate isn't my >>> friend! >> >> The analogy breaks here; unlike chocolate, the value of software/source >> code, if shared, doesn't decrease (in fact, many software increases its >> value when shared liberally, e.g. p2p apps). > > Absolutely true. Actually, the analogy was really pretty broken to > start with. It wasn't my analogy -- I was just trying to play > along :-) All analogy is broken, except if the analogy is the exact situation; but then again, if the analogy is the exact situation, then it's not an analogy :-)
From: Patrick Maupin on 12 May 2010 15:02 On May 12, 1:00 pm, Paul Boddie <p...(a)boddie.org.uk> wrote: > On 12 Mai, 16:10, Patrick Maupin <pmau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 12, 7:10 am, Paul Boddie <p...(a)boddie.org.uk> wrote: > > > What the licence asks you to do and what the author of the licence > > > wants you to do are two separate things. > > > But the whole context was about what RMS wanted me to do and you > > disagreed! > > What RMS as an activist wants is that everyone releases GPL-licensed > code, except where permissively licensed code might encourage open > standards proliferation. What RMS the licence author requests is that > your work is licensed in a way which is compatible with the GPL. Sorry, didn't know they were twins. > > [...] > > > > I wrote "the software" above when I meant "your software", but I have > > > not pretended that the whole system need not be available under the > > > GPL. > > > You say you "have not pretended" but you've never mentioned that it > > would or even acknowledged the correctness of my assertions about this > > until now, just claiming that what I said was false. > > Well, excuse me! I think we both know that combining something with a > GPL-licensed work and redistributing it means that the "four freedoms" > must apply, and that recipients get the work under the GPL. You can > insist that I said something else, but I spell it out in this post: > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/034fbc8289a4d555 > > Specifically the part... > > "Not least because people are only obliged to make their work > available under a GPL-compatible licence so that people who are using > the combined work may redistribute it under > the GPL." > > In case you don't find this satisfactory, "their work" means "their > own work". OK, but in the last several threads on this sub-part, you kept contradicting me for some supposed technicality (how was I to know there were two RMS's?) when I was trying to make the same point. > > [...] > > > > More loaded terms to replace the last set, I see. > > > IMO "Bullying" is the correct term for some of Stallman's actions, > > including in the clisp debacle. I knew you wouldn't agree -- that's > > why YMMV. And I'm not "replacing" any set of terms -- part of the > > "bullying" is the "forcing." > > Stallman gave Haible the choice to not use readline. Maybe that wasn't > very nice, It wasn't even legally correct. At that point, Stallman had access to counsel, etc. and should have known better. > and maybe Haible didn't believe that using readline would > incur any consequences, He wasn't distributing it! It didn't incur any legal consequences; only the consequence due to not realizing that using readline placed him squarely inside RMS's chess game. > but that's what you get when you use a > copyrighted work. No. That's what you get when you use a copyrighted work authored by an idealist who is trying to spread his choice of license. > Your language is all about portraying the FSF as > operating in some kind of illegal or unethical way. Sorry, didn't mean to be that subtle. RMS and others at the FSF have, on multiple occasions, made statements about how licenses work which are legally false. This is not illegal, but it is, in my opinion, unethical. Some of these claims appear to not be made so boldly any more, so perhaps they are catching on that others have caught on. > I guess you > believe that if you throw enough mud, some of it will stick. I don't care about mud or sticking. I am happy to see that the current wording of the FAQ probably means that another clisp/readline scenario won't happen, and like to believe that the public outcry over this sort of thing, and reminders of it in this sort of discussion, help to remind the FSF that others are watching them. > > > Again, what I meant was "your software", not the whole software > > > system. As I more or less state below... > > > BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER. Once the whole package is licensed under the > > GPL, for someone downstream to try to scrape the GPL off and get to > > just the underlying non-GPL parts is harder than scraping bubblegum > > off your shoe on a hot Texas day. > > Big deal. If a project wants to avoid even looking at GPL-licensed > code for the reason that someone might end up getting the code under > the GPL, and that they're so bothered that the opportunity to not > grant such recipients the privileges of modification and > redistribution disappears because of the GPL, then that's their > problem. Yes, I understand it's no big deal to you. However, what you have said is not quite right. If I license something under the MIT license, I cannot guarantee that no one will ever get it under the GPL, because it could be redistributed downstream under the GPL (but then I don't care to in any case). However, I *can* guarantee that the code I write (and all the underlying code it relies on) will remain freely available from me for people who need the ability to, for example, link with proprietary code. Despite this not being a very big deal to you, the whole tempest in a teacup here is about this very issue. Yes, I understand it is a problem for me, or any other author who wants to provide code that can be used freely by people who download it. And, as has been pointed out in this discussion, many people don't read licenses very carefully, so someone who doesn't want to restrict other people from linking his library with third party proprietary code should think twice about using the GPL. > [WebKit is LGPL-licensed but KHTML linked to GPL-licensed code, > shouldn't WebKit be GPL-licensed?] > > > I didn't make that claim and have never heard of that claim, and I'm > > not at all sure of the relevance of whatever you're trying to explain > > to the licensing of an overall program, rather than a library. > > The point is precisely the one you concede about a project needing to > be licensed compatibly with the GPL, even though to use the combined > work, the result will be GPL-licensed. You keep spinning around on what you're trying to argue or prove. I don't know what I'm supposed to have "conceded" -- I was only stating the obvious about how if I incorporate GPL licensed code in a project, the entire project has to be GPL licensed. > > > > All RMS and the FSF's lawyers wanted was that the CNRI licences be GPL- > > > compatible. There are actually various aspects of GPL-compatibility > > > that are beneficial, even if you don't like the copyleft-style > > > clauses, so I don't think it was to the detriment of the Python > > > project. > > > And I don't have a problem with that. Honestly I don't. But as far > > as I'm concerned, although you finally admitted it, a lot of the > > dancing around appeared to be an attempt to disprove my valid > > assertion that a combined work would have to be distributed under the > > GPL, and that no other free software license claims sovereignty over > > the entire work. > > I never denied that the GPL would apply to the combined work! Read the > stuff I quote above. Your *own* stuff (for example, the WebKit stuff) > can be licensed compatibly with the GPL (for example, the LGPL), but > the *whole* thing as it lands in the user's lap will be GPL-licensed. Yes, but at the outset, I was talking about incorporating (at least to the point of redistributing) GPL-licensed code. That forces the license. > No, what I am saying is that a fair amount of work might have gone > into making readline, even though it may not be shiny enough by some > people's standards, but that doesn't mean you can disregard the > authors' wishes by insisting that is it "trivial" or unimportant, > whereas your own software somehow is important. As soon as you go down > that road, everyone can start belittling the works of others purely so > that they can start disregarding the terms which regulate those works, > and then it's a free-for-all. Ahh, well done. You've sucked me into a meaningless side debate. If I'm not distributing readline, then legally the license distribution terms don't apply to me. End of story. (Morally, now we might get into how trivial it is or isn't.) > > > Well, if people are making use of "some good code found for free on > > > the Internet", particularly if they are corporations like Cisco, and > > > I'm not talking about Cisco. I'm talking about people like the author > > of clisp, and you well know it. > > Well, Cisco seemed to have a bit of a problem. Maybe they thought that > this "free stuff" was just a commodity, too. Well, that's the problem with an "attractive nuisance." It's attractive, or people wouldn't use it, and it's a nuisance -- either you have to have the lawyers look at all this paperwork, or you can just ignore it and hope for the best and be bothered by the nuisance later. And before you start talking about how the license isn't any worse than Microsoft, etc. -- just remember that, for Cisco, part of what makes it attractive is the availability of source. > > > they choose not to understand things like copyright and licensing, or > > > they think "all rights reserved" is just a catchy slogan, then they > > > probably shouldn't be building larger works and redistributing them. > > > Well, the FSF seems to have softened its stance, but at the time, > > clisp wasn't even distributing readline. That's why I use terms like > > "bullying". The bully now knows it's harder to get away with that > > particular lie, but he's still scheming about how to reel more people > > in. > > What the FSF did was regrettable if the author didn't feel he had a > choice. I have no idea what went on beyond what the public mailing > list record can reveal. But you don't need to know anything else. RMS claimed clisp was a derivative work of readline, even though readline wasn't even distributed with clisp. That's just plain copyright misuse, and if it had gone to court with good lawyers, RMS might have lost the copyright protections for readline. Regards, Pat
From: Paul Boddie on 12 May 2010 18:41
On 12 Mai, 21:02, Patrick Maupin <pmau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 12, 1:00 pm, Paul Boddie <p...(a)boddie.org.uk> wrote: [Quoting himself...] > > "Not least because people are only obliged to make their work > > available under a GPL-compatible licence so that people who are using > > the combined work may redistribute it under > > the GPL." > > > In case you don't find this satisfactory, "their work" means "their > > own work". > > OK, but in the last several threads on this sub-part, you kept > contradicting me for some supposed technicality (how was I to know > there were two RMS's?) when I was trying to make the same point. We both agree that any combining a work with a GPL-licensed work means that the result has to be distributable under the GPL. I was also merely pointing out that the non-GPL-licensed work has to be licensed compatibly if the possibility of combination with GPL-licensed works exists, but you still get to choose the licence. You even acknowledged this: "In practice, what it really means is that the combination (e.g. the whole program) would effectively be GPL-licensed. This then means that downstream users would have to double-check that they are not combining the whole work with licenses which are GPL-incompatible, even if they are not using the svg feature." And for the last time, Stallman's opinion on what you should or should not do is a distinct matter from the actual use of these licences. [Haible and readline] > He wasn't distributing it! It didn't incur any legal consequences; > only the consequence due to not realizing that using readline placed > him squarely inside RMS's chess game. Really, what Stallman did in 1992 is a matter for Stallman to defend. Whether a bunch of people use the GPL to license their work or not is a separate matter. All I can say is that Stallman's reasoning was probably driven by the possibility that someone could license their work in a fashion that is incompatible with readline, but deliberately be able to make use of it technically, and then when a user combines that work and readline, the user is told that although readline is used in that combined work, the licensing terms do not now apply. [...] > No. That's what you get when you use a copyrighted work authored by > an idealist who is trying to spread his choice of license. Well, take it up with Stallman, then. It's a separate issue from the use of the FSF's licences and even how the FSF functions today. [...] > Yes, I understand it's no big deal to you. However, what you have > said is not quite right. If I license something under the MIT > license, I cannot guarantee that no one will ever get it under the > GPL, because it could be redistributed downstream under the GPL (but > then I don't care to in any case). However, I *can* guarantee that > the code I write (and all the underlying code it relies on) will > remain freely available from me for people who need the ability to, > for example, link with proprietary code. Yes, and as I said, in the context of a program landing in a user's lap, there is no guarantee that such a program will offer users any privileges other than to run the program, and then maybe only under certain conditions. Which is how this discussion began. > Despite this not being a very big deal to you, the whole tempest in a > teacup here is about this very issue. Yes, I understand it is a > problem for me, or any other author who wants to provide code that can > be used freely by people who download it. And, as has been pointed > out in this discussion, many people don't read licenses very > carefully, so someone who doesn't want to restrict other people from > linking his library with third party proprietary code should think > twice about using the GPL. Sure, the permissive licences declare fewer restrictions or obligations on immediate recipients, but what kicked this discussion off was the remark about end-user privileges, not what certain recipients (but not others) are able to do with the code. [...] > > No, what I am saying is that a fair amount of work might have gone > > into making readline, even though it may not be shiny enough by some > > people's standards, but that doesn't mean you can disregard the > > authors' wishes by insisting that is it "trivial" or unimportant, > > whereas your own software somehow is important. As soon as you go down > > that road, everyone can start belittling the works of others purely so > > that they can start disregarding the terms which regulate those works, > > and then it's a free-for-all. > > Ahh, well done. You've sucked me into a meaningless side debate. If > I'm not distributing readline, then legally the license distribution > terms don't apply to me. End of story. (Morally, now we might get > into how trivial it is or isn't.) According to the FSF, whose opinions you don't trust, it doesn't matter if you do distribute readline or not: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL From version 3 of the GPL: "For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work." You may beg to differ. I would advise against doing so in a courtroom. [...] > But you don't need to know anything else. RMS claimed clisp was a > derivative work of readline, even though readline wasn't even > distributed with clisp. That's just plain copyright misuse, and if it > had gone to court with good lawyers, RMS might have lost the copyright > protections for readline. Now that *is* a ridiculous statement. Just because a decision is made that one work is not derived from another does not mean that the claimed original work is no longer subject to copyright. Paul |