From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-07 04:51:37
The link managed to escape. Bringing it back.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> 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.
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk