Boost logo

Boost :

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.

> So:
> 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.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at