On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 10:03:38PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net>: > > > > So before Wine was created, anything which uses a Windows library was a > > > derivative of Windows? > > > > Yes. > > There are so many theories on this subject that I am perpetually > confused, but I don't think that is what is usually claimed in the > case of GPL libraries. > > I think the usual claim is that the program that uses the library plus > the library is a derivative of the library (which is obviously true) > and also a single work even when the parts are distributed separately > (which is at least plausible). > > In the case of a typical Windows library that's not a problem because: > > 1. Only Microsoft and its agents are distributing the library. > > 2. The library is not available from public servers. > > 3. There is explicit or implicit permission to link the library with > arbitrary programs. That said, I have no problem conceiving of the notion that MS might change the license to prohibit specific programs from linking to a given library. Probably as part of a security update. So the theory holds, but it *could* be a problem. Fortunately it won't be our problem. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature