🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <aDN0eB9w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (Lieutenant 030) writes:
>I see.  So basically if I want to write a program which calls a GNU
>program in any way, there's no way for me to know whether I'm "safe" unless
>I hire expensive lawyers?
>
>No wonder lots of companies won't touch GNU software with a ten foot pole.

It seems that while supposedly saving people the necessity of hiring
programmers to re-invent proprietary code, GNU burdens those using it with
the necessity of hiring lawyers to pass individual legal judgements.

I know who'd I'd rather give my money.

I think it is an abuse of common sense to say that any program that as much
as uses a GNU-written "#include" file is a "derived work" of that include
file.  

If this is a valid interpretation, there will never be commercial
software produced for GNU OS.  Which is maybe what they want...

On the other hand, I think the GPL license, as applied to programs such
as Emacs and GNU CC, is a good idea.  The interpretation is not too
difficult there.  The programs themselves, are quite good.  So far
reasonable minds have prevailed and the GPL hasn't become a burden for
most practical purposes.  Also, it's worth noting, that people still sell
software, and seem to make a living at it.

>mathew


Matt
mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu