Re: GPL traitor !

[David Kastrup]

Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:

> Hi, Erik!
>
> It's good to talk to somebody with a name.  :-)
>
> In gnu.misc.discuss Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>> The GPL is misunderstood on a daily basis by many people.  In fact,
>> even GPL advocates can't seem to come to a consensus over what it
>> means, so how is any "normal" person supposed to know?
>
>> Here's an example.  Some GPL advocates believe that dynamic linking
>> is not covered by the GPL, while others (including the FSF) believe
>> it is.
>
> Dynamic linking, along with static linking, compilation,
> interpretation, profiling, and other specific techniques used by
> hackers are not covered by the GPL - they're outside its scope, and
> would be more of matter of patents than a copyright license, were they
> patentable.

This has nothing to do with understanding or not understanding anything
about the GPL.

What is covered is a matter of copyright law.  Which is the case with
any software license or contract.  Getting copyright law right is hard
and a moving overly complex target, different in different countries.

But that's hardly a fault with the GPL, let alone the FSF.

-- 
David Kastrup