Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

[Les Mikesell]

Alan Cox wrote:
>> Everyone can get their own access to the MS code, and they make no 
>> claims on yours.
> 
> You haven't read the small print on many microsoft supplied developer
> libraries then.
> 
>> The FSF claims you can't distribute code you've written yourself under 
>> your own terms if it links to a GPL'd library at runtime.  My example 
> 
> Again be careful of the term "link" - it has all sorts of wrong meanings
> to technical people. The law on derivative works for software is still
> very unclear (lack of caselaw) but there is certainly no reason to
> believe it is as simple as "linking" in the compiler sense as opposed to
> the "independent works" sense.

Agreed - it is a complicated issue.

> But you see that library is the GPL authors code and they've exercised
> their right as an author to decide what they do with their code.

No, they've gone well beyond that in claiming that your own code which 
calls that library's interfaces is also under their control.

 > Your
> right to control your code happens to be the same as their right to
> control their code.

You'd expect that to be the case, but it hasn't been.

> Anyway you can always write an alternative library.

How can the existence of a different library make any difference to the 
status of another piece of code that might use it?  And why does anyone 
think that's a productive thing to do?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com