Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.uoregon.edu!cs.uoregon.edu!usenet.ee.pdx.edu!walt.ee.pdx.edu!marcus
From: mar...@ee.pdx.edu (Marcus Daniels)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support
Date: 15 Sep 1994 13:30:15 GMT
Organization: Portland State University
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <MARCUS.94Sep15063015@tdb.ee.pdx.edu>
References: <1994Sep8.142206.18896@cs.cornell.edu> <34tilt$kkj@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
	<1994Sep11.201208.22928@cs.cornell.edu> <Cw66Az.9Co@info.swan.ac.uk>
Reply-To: mar...@ee.pdx.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: ursula.ee.pdx.edu

In-reply-to: iialan@iifeak.swan.ac.uk's message of Thu, 15 Sep 1994 11:52:11 GMT

>>>>> "Alan" == Alan Cox <iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk> writes:
In article <Cw66Az....@info.swan.ac.uk> iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox) writes:

[]
Alan> 	- How do inline functions in include files related to the GPL

Alan> 	- What about structures from include files

Alan> 	- When is a dynamic link a dynamic link
[]
Alan> A GPL v3 seems needed for at least one of these issues.

Indeed, it may be necessary to address these issues in a broad way.
However, it becomes easy to paint yourself into a corner by specifying legal
interpretations for each and every techinical convention.  It is easy
to see why the FSF has avoided this level of detail.

The examples you cite are specific to the C/object-module
world.  These terms don't apply so well to reflective development environments.

Developers should be able to tune the L/GPL to their personal intent, making
minor exceptions just as the FSF does.  I think the way to do this is with
explicit agreements with users.