<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.0.4417.0">
<TITLE>RE: Linking restrictions and shared libraries</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Has the GPL every taken anyone to court?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Carter</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> From: David Johnson [<A HREF="mailto:david@usermode.org">mailto:david@usermode.org</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 2:47 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> To: Dr. David Gilbert; license-discuss@opensource.org</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Subject: Re: Linking restrictions and shared libraries</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> On Monday March 12 2001 12:18 pm, Dr. David Gilbert wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > What I am unclear of is shared libraries; is there </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> something actually</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > copied into the result as part of the linking stage? If I </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> was to rewrite</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > a header for a GPL library so that I didn't make use of the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> GPLd header</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > could I then shared link it into a commercial app?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> I've come to the conclusion that absent a specific court </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> decision on this </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> specific matter, it doesn't matter a hill of beans what the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> law says, only </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> what RMS says. If he says that using dynamic libraries </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> creates derivates of </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> those libraries, then that's the way it is, gosh darn it! He </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> could say that </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> black is white, and absent a court decision, he could very </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> well be "legally" </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> correct.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Cynicism aside, I am a reductionist by nature. If the definition of </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> "derivative work" is too vague in copyright law, then I go </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> for a stricter </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> interpretation. RMS, on the other had, is a constructionist </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> by nature, and </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> takes a much broader interpretation of the vagueness.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> In the end, it all boils down to whether you want to be the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> one challenging </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> the GPL in court or not.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> -- </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> David Johnson</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ___________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> <A HREF="http://www.usermode.org">http://www.usermode.org</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>