MIT license vs Dynamic Linking

[Bruce Perens]

From: Arandir <arandir at meer.net>
> Apropos the Java/linking thread, the GPL cannot alter the terms of another's
> software license. The GPL can't restrict runtime linking based on derivation,
> because the two code bases have different copyright holders. The only way they
> could do it is by restricting the use of the GPL code. But the GPL
> emphatically states that it does not restrict usage.

I discussed this with two expert lawyers recently and they were not nearly
so sanguine.

The closest case is Nintendo vs. Golob. Golob made something that was loaded
co-resident with a Nintendo game and let you change the rules (get more
ammunition, etc.) I think Golob won, but the Judge's decision was not
definitive on the reference issue.

Regarding whether or not a GPL copyright owner can make a claim on a derived
work, sure he can - copyright law provides for that. On a dynamic-link work?
That depends. Probably if your executable uses headers that are part of the
work, as they are copied into the executable. Possibly not in the case of
dynamic linking, but the two lawyers with whom I discussed this said "nobody
knows yet", because there aren't good cases to refer to yet, thus the next
judge who rules on this is pretty much on his own.
RMS' law school instructor argues that dynamic linking is a device to
deliberately circumvent copyright law, and thus should be considered the
same as static linking. That interpretation could win in court, or not.

The GPL does not automaticaly modify somebody else's license terms. The
copyright owner of the infringing work does that by himself, in response
to an infringement complaint. Suppose you infringe upon a GPL work: you then
get a list of choices...

1. Stop distributing. Complaintant grumbles and goes away.

2. Pay the complaintant for a broader license, or ask him for another license
   at no charge, or make some sort of other settlement. Complaint helps you
   resolve situation.

3. Change the license on your derived work to eliminate the infringement.
   You become complaintant's partner in producing GPL work.

4. Do nothing and hope the complaintant doesn't sue because he can't afford
   to. Hope screaming horde of free software enthusiasts doesn't turn the
   reputation of your business to mud.

5. Let a judge or arbitrator sort it out.


	Thanks

	Bruce