Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: [...]
| "RMS: We have no say in what is considered a derivative work. That | is a matter of copyright law, decided by courts. When copyright | law holds that a certain thing is not a derivative of our work, | then our license for that work does not apply to it. Whatever our | licenses say, they are operative only for works that are | derivative of our code.
| A license can say that we will treat a certain kind of work as if | it were not derivative, even if the courts think it is. The Lesser | GPL does this in certain cases, in effect declining to use some | of the power that the courts would give us. But we cannot tell the | courts to treat a certain kind of work as if it were derivative, | if the courts think it is not."
I read this snippet to go against your conclusion, not to support it.
http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-March/004248.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-March/004297.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-March/004301.html And, BTW, the resulting "Fabricated responses" thread is also worth your attention, I think. http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004306.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004308.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004309.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004321.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004353.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004358.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004384.html
So:
Linking a non-GPL-like project to a GPL'ed lib is not ok. Linking a non-GLP-like project to a LGPL'ed lib is ok.
Such claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse and the doctrine of first sale. regards, alexander.