Re: XFree86 license difficulties
On 2004-01-31 14:01:42 +0000 MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> On 2004-01-30 19:31:44 +0000 paul cannon <pik@debian.org> wrote:
> > If XFree86 does not consider linking to create a derived work which
> > must carry the same restrictions as those in the library, then it
> > does not seem there is a problem; an application linking against Qt
> > and Xlib could be solely under the GPL. Or am I off my rocker here?
>
> Does XFree86 have some extensions that they developed? If so, how can
> it not be a derived work if you use those XFree86 extensions? It would
> be a mess, looking at each application.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that the FSF's opinion
on this is not universal. That is, it is not an irrational view that
dynamically linking to a library is only _using_ that library, not
creating a derived work from it.
It seems to me rather like using a command line utility in a script. One
might make wide use of GNU grep extensively in a proprietary program,
for example, and do so without affecting or worrying about the license
on grep at all.
As another example, a command line program could wrap the functionality
of nearly all libraries. If someone didn't want to link a program with
libcurl, one would simply invoke /usr/bin/curl and get much of the same
functionality. Should these be different actions from a licensing
standpoint?
As always, let me know if I seem to be on crack.
--
paul cannon
pik@debian.org
Reply to: