Subject: Re: dumb GPL question
From: Adam Theo <adamtheo@theoretic.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 13:29:42 -0400

DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>:
    If you are the author of the code, you could license your code
    like this:

     "This program is distributed under the terms of the GNU General
      Public License, with the exception that the author considers the
      officially distributed runtime libraries of any FooBar language
      compiler to be part of the `compiler or operating system' and to
      qualify for the compiler exception of GPL section 3"

so, with the GPL, at least, it is the GPL that restricts the linking
to other (non-copyleft or non-free) works?

it is not some U.S. law that restricts this?

i suppose the other work's license could restrict it linking with GPL
(or certain other licenses) code, tho, correct? but my main point is
that the GPL is pretty much to blame (sorry for using this word, but
it conveys the meaning want) for not being able to link with other
(non-GPL-compatible) works? 

-- 
   /\    --- Adam Theo ---
  //\\   Theoretic Solutions (www.Theoretic.com)
 /____\     Software, Politics, and Advocacy
/--||--\ email: theo@theoretic.com   AIM: Adam Theo 2000
   ||    jabber: adamtheo@jabber.org   ICQ: 3617306
   ||  "Did you ever get the feeling the world was a tuxedo,
   ||     and you were a pair of brown shoes?"