🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Mar28.045234.27003@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> coolidge@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) writes:

   Thus, I reiterate my position. The idea that a program linked with
   libg++ (or any piece of FSF code) is bound by the copyleft is legally 
   wrongheaded. Only the FSF code is covered by the copyleft. Furthurmore,
   such a binding, if it _were_ to be legally enforcable, would constitute
   an unethical intrusion into the rights under copyright of those it
   affects.

Actually, this is not the case at all.  Consider that what the GPL is
is a "limited license to copy".  You are allowed to copy their
software, under *their* conditions...same as any other copyrighted
work.  The conditions the FSF has set up are such that you can't
distribute a linked object with the libraries in cases where those
libraries are non-trivial (libg++, for example).  FSF has the right to
limit your ability to copy their code *any way they want to*.  They
take the position that it is wrong to sell software by the normal
copyright and license techniques, and seek to end the hoarding of
software that results.  If I use a library supplied by hoarding
company XXX, and they refuse to let me sell products linked with it
(use fee or no), then I'm stuck.  I don't get to complain that their
copyright limits the ability to sell my product. 

Finally, note that this is really academic.  All you have to do is
distribute a bunch of .o's and aggregate them with the library.
Distribute the source to the library and not your .o's, and supply
instructions to link the result.


--
    Michael I. Bushnell      \     This above all; to thine own self be true
LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE  \    And it must follow, as the night the day,
   mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu     /\   Thou canst not be false to any man.
        CARPE DIEM           /  \  Farewell:  my blessing season this in thee!