hypothetical(?) GPL problem

[Lutz Horn]

Hi John, hi all,

* John Tapsell <tapselj0 at cs.man.ac.uk> [20010620 09:51 +0100]:
> I don't know whether this is correct or not, but I like your reasoning
> :) However... who cares?

Well, I think we should care. The FSF(E) is _the_ entity to guard over
the GNU GPL. It should actively try to prevent it's missues and speak
out if missues occures.

> If they go to all that trouble ...

Going through trouble wouldn't make it right. A big software vendor with
enough ressources could try to use this kind of reasoning for his
benefit and harm free software in doing so. But if it pays off to do
this, if the advantage gained is bigger than the loss incured by the
anger of the free software community, a firm /could/ decide in favour of
this reasoning. Do we want that to happen?

> And would you risk it?

Of course not. Luckily I'm not in the position to provide this kind of
'service'. But what if my boss decides that following this reasoning is
worth the risk and he tells me do provide the service of linking the
free library to the proprietary piece of software: what shall I do? I'd
have to say no or try to argue against it.

Regards
Lutz
-- 
Lutz Horn <lh at lutz-horn.de>
For PGP information see header.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20010620/d6896c58/attachment.sig>