On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 11:00:09AM +0300, Ville-Pertti Keinonen wrote:

> While you're essentially correct, the above could also be interpreted to 
> mean that you can get around the GPL by having the end-user link 
> GPL-incompatible software against a GPL component.  According to RMS, 
> this is not acceptable, even for a minor, optional component (he 
> demanded that CLISP change its licensing due to the optional ability to 
> link against GNU readline; the author changed to GPL).

RMS has changed his position on this, and, I believe, is going beyond what
the GPL states to apply pressure for others to change their license.

Dave