Ok, after catching up on all the "class wrappers is use" messages,
I got to thinking (the smoke coming out of my ears was a sign)
so I got to reading, and it took too long, so I did a search instead.

the string "link" occurs only once in the GPL. It's WAY past the 
"Terms and Conditions for Copying, Distribution, and Modification"
bullets. (i.e. bullets 0 through 10). It's way past the NO WARRANTY
clause.  It's in the last paragraph, of the last, page-long, section titled:
"How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs"

yada yada, for almost a page, then lastly it says:

"This [GPL] does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary
programs.  If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it
more useful to permit ***LINKING*** proprietary applications with the 
library."  If so, use the LGPL instead of GPL. (emphasis added by me)

So, the license doesn't forbid linking.
It forbids incorporating, but that would only be limited to 
copy, modify, and any other right granted to the author by copyright law.

The second to last sentence is a conditional "if a library"
that if true merely yields a suggestion "you might find it more useful to use LGPL"

So, if FSF or whoever, has come out and said linking is not permitted
by the GPL, they are assuming a judge would rule that linking is 
a modification or derivation versus a use of the program.
And therefore GPL's terns for modification would include linking. 
But without that ruling, linking  is not prohibitted by the GPL license itself.

and, I do not see how linking can be lumped in with "derived works"
since it is impossible to USE such a library without linking it.
Such a library is USELESS without the ability to link it.

Which says to me that FAIR USE would probably include LINKING.

similar in vein to the way FAIR USE in the Betamax decision
allows people to COPY a copyrighted TV program for the 
purpose of time-shifting.

You can't copy copyrighted material, but fair use says you can
in a specific, limited way: time shifting for personal use.

so, besides any diatribes you feel like blabbering,
can someone give a legal explanation why the following aren't true?

1) the GPL does not  prohibit linking
2) linking would probably fall under fair use even if the GPL did prohibit it.

I personally can't come up with any.

IANAL, TINLA, IMHO, YADA YADA YADA
Greg 





--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

