>>>>> "Paolo" == Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu.org> writes:

Paolo> This is exactly what the FSF did *not* say.  They said:

>> we see no problem with people
>> studying LGPLed code in order to write a different implementation that
>> does the same thing.  We give people the source, enabling them to study
>> it, without requiring them to accept any license.  The LGPL doesn't have
>> any requirements for people writing an independent implementation, and
>> that's because it has no teeth it could use to enforce such those
>> requirements.

And where is the formal document amending the LGPL to permit this?

"derived work" is a broad term, and the FSF must specifically waive its rights
to that.  If I *look* at GNU code, then write something similar, that is
arguably "derived work", and therefore subject to GNU licensing.

I don't see that anything has changed, except that we have an "understanding"
that is not legally binding.

Let's make it legally binding, and then (only then!) has something changed.

Until then, *DO NOT LOOK AT GST*.

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn at stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!