[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes: > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On 2004-02-02 20:11:45 +0000 paul cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that the FSF's >>> opinion >>> on this is not universal. That is, it is not an irrational view that >>> dynamically linking to a library is only _using_ that library, not >>> creating a derived work from it. >> >> Some works with copyright held by FSF are affected by this, so their >> published opinion probably would count. > > The copyright owner does not have the right to dictate rules > contradicting copyright law. Not even if he believes copyright law is > immoral.
True. But rights or no, it is important to be polite where we can. I don't believe the FSF's interpretation is correct, but that really doesn't matter. I don't believe University of Washinton's interpretation of the Pine license is correct either, nor do I believe MicroSoft can claim the rights on which they insist. But it is polite for me to respect these authors' wishes with respect to their works. What gains I would receive from rudeness to not balance out the cost of that rudeness to society. >> However, if there is a good reason why the result of a compile that >> included a file from a work, which appears only in that work because >> it is an extension unique to that work, is not derived from that work, >> I'm interested to read it. > > You seem to be forgetting that dynamic linking doesn't include any > files. More, dynamic linking is arguably a method of operation. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
