Oliver, > The FSF assert that dynamic linking is subject to the same licensing as > static linking, but I have never felt that this is a tenable position. "Dynamic linking" as in writing a relocation table and adding a note taat the executable is to be linked against a library at runtime is certainly not covered by the license, since the executable does not incorporate anything copyrightable and thus does not form a derived work. "Dynamic linking" in the "getting linked at runtime by the dynamic linker" is a different matter. Here it is the same thing happening that would be happening at the final linker stage when linking statically, namely forming a big address space containing both the library and the executable code and adjusting adresses to point inside the other module. The image now in memory forms a derivative work, thus the executable must be under the GPL or linking the executable (i.e. running it) violates the library's license. I.e. we would be permitted to ship binaries under an incompatible license that link with GPLed libraries, but noone would be allowed to run them, which kind of defeats the point of distributing them. Simon -- GPG Fingerprint: 040E B5F7 84F1 4FBC CEAD ADC6 18A0 CC8D 5706 A4B4
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature