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

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

Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org> writes:

> On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 10:43:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> > 
> > > Yes, it is different.  One is a program making callouts to a different
> > > entity, the kernel.  The case we were talking about is that of library
> > > linking. 
> > 
> > I should add here that it is relevant that the callouts to the kernel
> > are callouts to an interface which is defined as "not making things a
> > combined derived work", which is not normally the case for a library.
> > It is relevant and important here that the authors of the kernel
> > intend that understanding of those callouts.
> What is the definition of a "callout"?

By "callout" I mean a mechanism for one program to call another.  

> 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

> You dismissed my Tcl example without comment but I don't see how
> it is different to the kernel case. A non-free program running
> in the Tcl interpreter can have the Tcl interpreter load a GPLed
> library such as libreadline. The non-free program is not
> linked to the library. So why is this illegal?

Maybe it is disallowed.  I haven't thought about it.

Reply to: