Re: XFree86 license difficulties
MJ Ray <mjr@debian.org> writes:
> On 2004-02-02 22:25:11 +0000 Måns Rullgård <mru@kth.se> wrote:
>
>> MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> writes:
>>> Some works with copyright held by FSF are affected by this, so
>>> their published opinion probably would count.
>> The copyright owner does not have the right to dictate rules
>> contradicting copyright law. Not even if he believes copyright law
>> is immoral.
>
> That is true, but you don't seem to say that it contradicts copyright
> law. If you want to do that instead of FUDding, I ask you to give
> references.
As much as I'd like to, I don't have any references. However, neither
does the FSF. They are simply making claims with no backing
whatsoever.
>>> However, if there is a good reason why the result of a compile that
>>> included a file from a work, which appears only in that work
>>> because it is an extension unique to that work, is not derived from
>>> that work, I'm interested to read it.
>> You seem to be forgetting that dynamic linking doesn't include any
>> files.
>
> Sorry, your telepathy is wrong. I didn't query the run-time-only case
> because I'm not particularly interested in that right now. Most
> software for XFree86 that I have seen includes files at compile.
No, they merely include an instruction to the dynamic linker to link
in libX11.so. The libX11.so that gets linked at runtime could come
from any vendor, as long as it is compatible. In practice, there
won't be many binary compatible variants around, but that's a
non-issue. The important part is that no code from the library is
included in the compiled and linked program when distributed.
--
Måns Rullgård
mru@kth.se
Reply to: