[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Corel's apt frontend



On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 01:41:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 07:01:00PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Nevertheless the inclusion of header files *is* the key point of an
> > often-heard argument that the dynamic linkage is a violation.
> Which probably reflects a lack of understanding of copyright law as much
> as anything else.

Quite plausibly. I can't find any real references for the legal reasoning
either way though. My lawyer-student friend couldn't offer any real
enlightenment beyond `this is what the LGPL says', either.
 
> For the case of U.S. copyright law dynamic linking not explicitly provided
> for in the license is a fair use issue, not a "this isn't covered by
> copyright law" issue.

Australia doesn't have fair use provisions, as I understand it, btw. I
hope that doesn't mean we're not allowed to use dynamically linked
libraries. (`implied permission' would come to mind as an excuse) :-/

> At least... that's the way I currently understand it.  [And, if anyone
> can provide some legal reference which proves that I'm wrong, I'd be
> happy to see it.]

Please. (The LGPL simply asserts that binaries linked statically or against
a shared library are derived works, it doesn't give any reasoning for it)

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.

 ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it 
        results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
                                        -- Linus Torvalds

Attachment: pgpWBsPmXK0SK.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: