Linking restrictions and shared libraries
carter at qosient.com
Tue Mar 13 03:51:57 UTC 2001
Has the GPL every taken anyone to court?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Johnson [mailto:david at usermode.org]
> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 2:47 PM
> To: Dr. David Gilbert; license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: Linking restrictions and shared libraries
> On Monday March 12 2001 12:18 pm, Dr. David Gilbert wrote:
> > What I am unclear of is shared libraries; is there
> something actually
> > copied into the result as part of the linking stage? If I
> was to rewrite
> > a header for a GPL library so that I didn't make use of the
> GPLd header
> > could I then shared link it into a commercial app?
> I've come to the conclusion that absent a specific court
> decision on this
> specific matter, it doesn't matter a hill of beans what the
> law says, only
> what RMS says. If he says that using dynamic libraries
> creates derivates of
> those libraries, then that's the way it is, gosh darn it! He
> could say that
> black is white, and absent a court decision, he could very
> well be "legally"
> Cynicism aside, I am a reductionist by nature. If the definition of
> "derivative work" is too vague in copyright law, then I go
> for a stricter
> interpretation. RMS, on the other had, is a constructionist
> by nature, and
> takes a much broader interpretation of the vagueness.
> In the end, it all boils down to whether you want to be the
> one challenging
> the GPL in court or not.
> David Johnson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss