Re: linking to GPL'd libraries WAS Re: One unclear point in the Vim license

[tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:

> > Why is it so different to a published library function?
> > Apart from convenience of argument, that is.
> 
> Libraries are much more tightly integrated with their callers, for
> example.  

Oh, and you ignored my stressing the importance of considering intent
and common practice.  It is the intent of kernel designers that the
kernel is not one program together with the programs that it loads.

It generally *is* the intent of library authors that the library is
part of the programs with which they are linked.  The nature and
structure of the situation is important, as are the intentions of the
parties.

But the real point, which people frequently seem to miss, is that only
this way can the integrity of the copyleft be maintained.  If the use
of dynamic loading were sufficient to get around the GPL, then its
copylefting provisions would be entirely a dead letter, and it would
be no better that the BSD license.

For that very reason, the FSF and GPL-users in general staunchly stick
to the importance of this rule, because it is the only thing that
preserves the integrity of the copyleft itself.

Now, if you want to argue the point further, *please* take it up with
RMS or with Eben Moglen.  There's really no advantage to wasting
debian-legal with it.  That's what I was trying to get across to
lloyder@canada.com, and now he's suckered us into a stupid argument.  

Thomas