Dynamic linking, was: Re: Dispelling BSD License Misconceptions

[Matthew Flaschen]

Ben Tilly wrote:
> In my opinion it should be a judgement call based on how closely
> connected your code is with the design of GNU readline.  Remember that
> copyright is not just intended to apply to literal copying.  For
> instance if I write a short story and Mickey Mouse appears in it, I'm
> going to hear from Disney's lawyers.

Yes, but probably on trademark grounds.

  Even though I have not copied
> anything exact, I can still be derivative of it.  Likewise if my code
> makes liberal use of ideas and memes created by GNU readline, there is
> an argument that I'm derivative of realine regardless of whether I
> link.

Ideas and memes alone shouldn't be enough to create a derivative work
under copyright law.

> 
> Of course my opinion is influenced by having read
> http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Kernel/proprietary-kernel-modules.html in
> detail and then having thought about how the changing richness of the
> Linux kernel module API has changed Linus' opinions about when a
> binary module is a derived work of the Linux kernel.  (And why.)

That is a quite interesting compilation.

Matthew Flaschen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070128/2517cc2c/attachment.sig>