81–83 of 83 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
c) Does not matter. The FSF does not get to write copyright law and decide what is or is not a derivative work.
Ok, but if you're not going to take their word for what is and isn't covered by the license, then I think the only possible answer is to get a good IP lawyer.
The real answer is, if someone distributes a Python module in GPL (as opposed to LGPL or other more liberal license), they clearly are either A) stupid/ignorant of the issues surrounding open source licensing, or B) don't want anyone to use their code who isn't also going to go whole-hog down the GPL rabbit hole. In real life, any useful plugin/loadable lib/module/etc that is intended to be used in a non-academic/res…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, he's being downmodded for suggesting that the author should have to contact one particular organization to get answers to simple questions about something as widely used and discussed as the GPL.
Then he's being downmodded unjustly, as he listed two specific organizations, included an "etc." in his list of organizations, and prefaced the entire list with a "perhaps". Regardless of where the answers to these questions come from, it would be good to share the confusion with the FSF, in hopes that they can remedy it. I do not believe their goal is to inflict confusing licenses upon the general public, but they d…
Assuming that he meant Free Software Foundation, his mention of The Free Software Law Center invalidates my point, though, because clearly they're not closely tied to the Free Software Foundation. Otherwise, they wouldn't say "Open Source" on their home page without going into a diatribe about the term.