Barry Rowlingson wrote:
2008/11/14 Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Another question is if that "strict" interpretation of the GPL could
...
Actually Carlos asked that question, not me.
Duncan Murdoch
be actually enforced, of course. Coming back to the GSL example, it
seems a more flagrant violation of the license is already happening:
http://www.numerit.com/gsl.htm (apparently the publisher of that
product thinks that linking to a GPL dll doesn't impose any obligation
to him, but the usual view of the FSF is quite the opposite; I just
found that page by chance, I don't know anything else about that
particular case).
A "strict" interpretation of the GPL does not stop numerit from doing
what they do. They do not distribute the GSL in any form. They tell
you to go get the GSL dll from somewhere.
This misconception of the license terms comes about because of the
use of the word 'use'. If I distribute a short C program that has a
call in it to a function that has the same name as something in the
GSL, does my C program use the GSL? No. Maybe it _mentions_ the GSL,
but the GPL has no problems with that. I'm distributing my C program,
and not the GPL-covered code, so I can license it how I like.
I can't find any rage from the FSF about what Numerit are doing, so I
assume they're not considering it a violation.
Barry
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
