Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
Andrew Suffield <firstname.lastname@example.org> schrieb/wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:52:00PM +0200, Claus F?rber wrote:
>> So one of the assumptions made above is wrong.
> The one where you assumed that dynamic linking was relevent. I've been
> saying that all along.
You were also saying that C is "probably" a derivative of O:
| I do not know how a program that really used openssl, calling its
| functions, could avoid being a derivative. I can't rule it out but
(The typical case for dynamic linking is that there are function calls.)
For a high-level argumentation like mine, it does not matter whether the
legal link between C and O is created by dynamic linking, incorporating
"function calls", or anything else, the result is always the same:
If O can be replaced by M, the assumption that B/C is a derivative of O,
must be wrong.
(Of course, this is only true if you can make an M that is not a
derivative of O either, which depends on wheter the interface is
elegible for copyright.)