From: Lars Gullik Bjønnes (larsbj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-06 10:53:49
Alexander Terekhov <terekhov_at_[hidden]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> If what you say here is true, then what is the point in having both a
>> GPL and a LGPL license?
| "RMS: We have no say in what is considered a derivative work. That
| is a matter of copyright law, decided by courts. When copyright
| law holds that a certain thing is not a derivative of our work,
| then our license for that work does not apply to it. Whatever our
| licenses say, they are operative only for works that are
| derivative of our code.
| A license can say that we will treat a certain kind of work as if
| it were not derivative, even if the courts think it is. The Lesser
| GPL does this in certain cases, in effect declining to use some
| of the power that the courts would give us. But we cannot tell the
| courts to treat a certain kind of work as if it were derivative,
| if the courts think it is not."
I read this snippet to go against your conclusion, not to support it.
Linking a non-GPL-like project to a GPL'ed lib is not ok.
Linking a non-GLP-like project to a LGPL'ed lib is ok.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk