From: Tuomo L. <dj...@ik...> - 2008-05-16 09:42:41
|
Tor Lillqvist wrote: >> Only an opinion from the FSF itself can >> have any authority in this matter, however. > > Or more properly, an opinion of the copyright owner to the code in > question. If one or several persons own the copyright to some code > that requires, say, GDI headers to compile, and they still decide to > distribute that code under the GPL or LGPL, I don't see what the FSF's > or some third party's interpretation of these licenses have to do with > it. IANAL, but even the copyright owner's interpretation of the license is irrelevant. You are suppose to say what you mean without any room for misinterpretation in a license. If there is room for interpretation, funny legal things may ensue. Of course, the copyright owner may re-license or choose to ignore breaches of license (which in some cases could also be seen as implicit re-licensing, I think), but that is another matter. -- Tuomo ... Don't do what I SAY, do what I mean! |