Vladimir G. Ivanovic writes:
Two comments about the sharing of files:
1. We have no intention of linking two source files,
No, but we do have the intention to compile them, then link the
compiled objects, and the FSF claims that means that the source files
are therefore part of the same work, and if the license on any of
those files is strong copyleft, then the rest of the source files must
be licensed compatibly.
To put it another way, if your position were to be accepted by the
courts, then the GPL would be effectively the same as the LGPL, as
long as you don't distribute executables. The FSF will not allow that
meme to propagate without a fight.
so I think we're in the clear. In any case, objecting to us
source files would be directly in conflict with the FSF's goal of
making source code available to one and all.
That hasn't stopped them from threatening people with lawsuits in the
past. The FSF is quite clear on this point: copyleft is *inherently
freedom-reducing*, but a necessary evil because people will misuse the
freedom. And it needs to be enforced.
2. Although we are not legally an organization, we are nonetheless
one. We act like one; we have a charter, processes and rules, and
there is a distinction between members and non-members. If it quacks
like a duck, waddles like a duck, lays eggs and gobbles bread, then
it's a duck.
Again, if that position were to be upheld in court, we could just
relabel the "open source movement" as the "open source organization",
and once again the GPL would lose all force.
XEmacs-Beta mailing list