From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-06 12:11:02
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | "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.
And, BTW, the resulting "Fabricated responses" thread is also worth
your attention, I think.
> 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.
Such claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse and
the doctrine of first sale.