Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 16:25:27 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@trout.mt.sri.com> To: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: RMS's view on dynamic linking Message-ID: <199702212325.QAA06245@trout.mt.sri.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Path: helena.MT.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-11.sprintlink.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!howland.erols.net!netnews.com!netaxs.com!usenet From: mef@netaxs.com (Mike Fessler) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: A GPL license question Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 14:57:25 GMT Organization: netaxs.com Lines: 16 Message-ID: <330db6d0.547238@netnews.netaxs.com> References: <5dt9po$g52$1@nntp2.ba.best.com> <wwa7mkdqch6.fsf@bommel.math.ruu.nl> <5ee5d3$et4$1@coho.halcyon.com> <axvi7nzqln.fsf@terminus.cs.umb.edu> <5ejkn4$683@pasilla.bbnplanet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: chestnut1-26.slip.netaxs.com X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230 Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote: : But if the library is a DLL, it's completely independent of the calling : program. There's no code from the library in the executable, so how can it : be considered either a copy or a derivative work? If you distribute them : together, I think this would fall under the "mere aggregation" clause of : the GPL, which doesn't require the executable to fall under the GPL. According to rms, with whom I just corresponded about this issue, that's not so. His view is that linking two programs is not "mere aggregation", regardless or whether it's static or dynamic linking. I agree that resolving this in court would get extremely messy, but there it is. (Heck, many jurors can't even make sense of DNA evidence, and *it's* been all over the press -- I shudder to think of the hash they'd make of a GPL case...)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199702212325.QAA06245>