Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
| Such claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse and | the doctrine of first sale.
So what you are saying is that GPL/LGPL is unenforceable? So that all software that uses GPL has in fact no-license at all and that regular copyright law rules?
I'm saying that copyright law doesn't contemplate copyleft ("copyright hack" <attribution: Professor Moglen>). Exclusive right to prepare derivative works has really nothing to do with linking and use of templates. Read the GCC libstdc++ license. I'm saying that the so-called "runtime exception" is unneeded because the lawful interpretation of the GPL isn't quite what you think. FSF's theory of derivative works is total crap and has no legal standing. regards, alexander.