On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 21:48 -0800, John Millikin wrote:
Please cite where the FSF claims the GPL applies to unrelated works just because they can compile against GPL'd code. Keep in mind that if your claim is correct, then every significant Linux and BSD distro is committing massive copyright infringement.
I'm not sure what you're doing here. You yourself just wrote in another email: "If you create a derivative work of BSD3 and GPL code (eg, a binary), it's covered by both the BSD3 and GPL." In practice, since the BSD3 contains no terms that aren't also contained in the GPL, that means it's covered by the GPL. If you're actually confused, I'd be happy to compose a longer response with more details. But since you've just said yourself the same thing I was saying, I feel rather as though running off to collect quotations from the FSF web site would be a wild goose chase and not much worth the time. What part of this do you think needs support? Is it the definition of "derived work" to include linking? Something else? -- Chris Smith