From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-07 04:19:05
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov_at_[hidden]> writes:
> | Such claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse and
> | the doctrine of first sale.
> So what you are saying is that GPL/LGPL is unenforceable? So that all
> software that uses GPL has in fact no-license at all and that regular
> copyright law rules?
I'm saying that copyright law doesn't contemplate copyleft
("copyright hack" <attribution: Professor Moglen>). Exclusive
right to prepare derivative works has really nothing to do
with linking and use of templates. Read the GCC libstdc++
license. I'm saying that the so-called "runtime exception" is
unneeded because the lawful interpretation of the GPL isn't
quite what you think. FSF's theory of derivative works is
total crap and has no legal standing.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk