<SNIP>
> meanings of all the terms in a legal document have to be fixed at compile
> time, so to speak? I mean, if you (being the author of a piece of GPLed
> software that can link to something else) are allowed to interpret
> "linking" to mean whatever you want it to mean on a case-by-case basis,
> where's the meaningful distinction between GPL and LGPL? The BeOS case
> showed that basically anyone can "link" GPLed code whenever they want, as
> long as they keep their address spaces separate.
Actually, Be ended up buying a BSD licenced driver from Donald Becker.
> IMHO there isn't any such meaningfule distinction between the GPL
> and LGPL, and my non-lawyer suspicions tell me that eventually it will be
> found in a court of law that once you compile GPLed code you cannot put
> any restrictions on how people "run" the binary - which is all linking is,
> really. Whoever made the point about distributed object systems was
> correct - systems like that make everything "link" to everything else
> anyway.
>
> Jon
>
> ---
> 'Cloning and the reprogramming of DNA is the first serious step in
> becoming one with God.'
> - Scientist G. Richard Seed
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html