On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 02:07:18AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting KatolaZ (katolaz@???):
>
> > Apart from that, it is a copyleft licence, which guarantees to users
> > and developers the same 4 freedoms which inspired GPLv1 and
> > GPLv2. Just remember that, for a formal reason, GPLv2 and GPLv3 are
> > link-incompatible. In fact, each of them specifies that the software
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > they cover (and any derivative) should be distributed under "the same
> > licence".
>
> FSF's frequently repeated notion that there's something of vital legal
> importance about the act of linking is unsupported by copyright law.
> (And yes, I'm saying that what the GPL FAQ says on this subject is
> total rubbish. It's what FSF would _like_ to be the case.)

Your position is pretty fringe. This doesn't mean it's incorrect ("correct"
interpretation depends on who spent more money getting the precedent[1] rather
than on common sense), but for now, the situation is that most distributions
will refuse to take your code.


[1]. The US and its legal system is vastly overrepresented when it comes to
license litigation. The rest of the world has no precedents but bribing
politicians works the same.
--
An imaginary friend squared is a real enemy.