On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 03:09:05PM -0400, Shaya Potter wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Debian Private <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Friday, October 09, 1998 11:49 AM > Subject: Re: slashdot > > > >John Lapeyre writes: > >> Something that came up in the discussion. Does anyone have any idea what > >> the U.S. legal system (or german or uruguayan for that matter) might > >> think about the GPL and static vs. dynamic linking ,etc. > > > >I think that the courts would permit dynamic linking to non-free libraries, > >but the point is controversial and I don't want to argue it here. > > > >You might have to write your own header files. > > > Better yet, what if Harmony was written to be binary compatable with Qt, you > could compile with Harmony, it wouldn't work well, till harmony implemented > all of Qt's class's, but you could just drop Qt in, and you'd have a working > system. I've essentially come to the opinion that the GPL has no control > over dynamic linking b/c it's something a user does in the privacy of his > own home.
I agree.... in the privacy of your computer you can do ANYTHING YOU WANT You can link code against any library...you can dissassemble proprietary code...you can (as a fututre licence I plan to use will state explicitly) print it out and shove the hardcopy in obcene places (NOTE: this may still be illegal in some states depending on what obcene place you stick it - check your local laws and ordinances) personally ive come to the opinion that federal and state law have no control on anything I do in the privacy of my own home.. they just simply can't.... The GPL does NOT say you can't link it...it ONLY specifies what requirements you MUST meet to distribute it. (I guess in that way the GPL is allot more realistic than many laws ;) ) -Steve -- /* -- Stephen Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>------------ */ E-mail "Bumper Stickers": "A FREE America or a Drug-Free America: You can't have both!" "honk if you Love Linux"
