FreeTDS Development Group

["Mark J. Lilback" <mark AT lilback.com>]

At 1:04 PM -0500 9/27/2002, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Are you saying that Eben Moglen has claimed that dynamic linking to GPL
> code does not bring with it the requirement that the application be
> made available under the GPL?  I've never heard any such statement from
> anyone affiliated with the FSF; it's quite clear to me that it is the
> intention of the GPL's framers that such could *should* be covered by the
> GPL.

<http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT4528760742.html>

It doesn't appear exactly as I thought it did, but it gives some good 
points about the reality of law/courts and the GPL. The most telling 
quote to me is:

"This reading of the GPL has become so prevalent in the past year 
that Stallman's opinion on the matter is largely irrelevant. The GPL 
has effectively merged with the industry standard reading of 
derivatives in US software law."

There's plenty of backing evidence for this (that linking to 
something does not make your product a derivative product), but like 
I said, I'm not willing to risk my business on it. I want to hear it 
from the courts or the FSF before I'm willing to work with/on GPL 
code.


--
__________________________________________________________________________
                                  "They that can give up essential liberty
Mark J. Lilback                    to obtain a little temporary safety
<mark AT lilback.com>                 deserve neither liberty or safety."
http://www.lilback.com/                               -- Benjamin Franklin