Re: linking to GPL'd libraries WAS Re: One unclear point in the Vim license
Hamish Moffatt <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 10:43:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > email@example.com (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.