🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Dma3eB20w164w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (Lieutenant 030) writes:
> charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:
>> In article <ZsHyeB7w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (Lieutenant 030)
>> writes:

>> > The question is:  why should my function bar(), written only by me, have
>> > to be distributed under the GPL just because it calls function foo()?
>> > Why can't I just say "the functions in this .c file are under the GPL;
>> > the functions in this .c file aren't"?

>> You can.

> Ah!  This is news to me.  Good news too.

> There's only one more question.  Is it *true*?

You're probably more likely to get an authoritative answer to that by
sending mail to gnu@gnu.ai.mit.edu (or is it just @ai.mit.edu?
Presumably the former should work, at any rate) than by posting to
this newsgroup.

david carlton
carlton@husc.harvard.edu

       Let me do my TRIBUTE to FISHNET STOCKINGS...