GPL compliance

Scott James Remnant scott at
Thu Jun 29 18:16:53 BST 2006

On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 12:56 -0400, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:

> <quote who="Scott James Remnant" date="Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 02:57:39PM +0100">
> > A README file would be part of the media, rather than accompanying
> > it, no?
> I've seen people satisify the source requirements for the GLP with a
> README file on the CD. Of course, I'll leave the final verdict up the
> FSF.
Isn't the final verdict up to the individual licence owners?

e.g. I have a very different interpretation to the FSF about how the GPL
covers dynamic linking than the FSF have ... so when I licence libraries
under the GPL, I think it's _perfectly_acceptable_ for non-GPL binaries
to use them.

The FSF's opinion of what the GPL means is only relevant if they're the
ones paying the lawyers to come after people, and they only do that for
their own software.

Scott James Remnant
scott at
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url :

More information about the sounder mailing list