'GPL encumbrance problems' (jdow)

[Mike McCarty]

John Summerfied wrote:

[snip]

> If I employ a BSD-style licence, then you can choose to use a similar 
> licence yourself, to use a proprietary licence and to not provide your 
> source, or even to distribute _your_ software, even as a derived work, 
> under the terms of the GPL.
> 
> If, on another hand, I grant you use under the terms of the GPL, then 
> you are still free to write your software, but if you link your program 
> with mine (isn't that what the headers are for?), then any distribution 
> you do must be under the terms of the GPL, and you must (if asked) 
> produce the source on demand.

AFAIK, this has not been tested in court, and ISTR hearing that there is
court precedent that linking a program with a library does
not (LGPL language notwithstanding) create a "derived work".

[snip]

> comments. But, IANAL.

And neither am I. (I left this in for your protection, so I wouldn't
be taking you statements out of context.)

> 
> On the whole, the GPL serves us well, but it's not for everyone or for 
> everyprogram.

Never was a truer word spoken. It serves *some* of us well, others
*not* so well.

[snip]

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!