On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 01:08:56PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: > > 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. You need to add the rationale behind "A unidiff patch is a derivative work of the thing it is intended to patch", to get "A dynamically linked binary is a derivative work of the things it is intended to load". These two are essentially the same thing, applied to different scenarios - you might not accept that a patch is a derivative work of the thing it patches (without any context), but I think you'd have trouble if you tried to claim in a court that "My product is not a derivative work of their product because it is distributed only as a diff between the source trees". Trying to claim that because "work B does not include anything directly copied from work A" means that "work B is not a derivative work of work A" is sheer sophistry and unlikely to stand up in court. A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work". -- Section 101, Title 17, United States Code Including byte strings from the original work is not a requirement here, or in any other copyright law I have seen. [Note that most of the paragraph is examples which are not relevant to software, which is considered a literary work for the purposes of copyright.] -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature