[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Live-f1 license issue.

On 8/6/06, Scott James Remnant <scott@netsplit.com> wrote:
I disagree; I do not believe the GPL can cover dynamic linking.  Dynamic
linking is mapping two separate binary objects into memory and
overlaying runtime-generated references based on a common interface of
string symbol names, *NOT* producing any kind of combined object file on

In the general case, the mechanical details of the system (including
issues like dynamic linking or other modularity related issues) are
irrelevant to copyright.  It's the work of art that matters to copyright,
not the mechanical details.  And the working application is either a
work of art, or copyright does not apply to it.

That said, in specific cases those mechanical details are evidence
about author intent and about the nature of the work, and:

I can certainly say that I, as the copyright holder of Live-F1, will
never claim a licence breach for the code being dynamically linked to
non-GPL code through a publically defined interface[1].

This kind of statement addresses at least some of the potential

Probably also worth pointing out that users may not even have the right
to use Live-F1, as the data it manipulates is under unclear licence
terms.  I haven't yet had a knock on the door from Bernie's lawyers, but
that's not necessarily telling.

But this kind of statement indicates that at least some potential
issues might not be addressed.


Reply to: