On Thursday 2009 January 29 22:39:51 Ron Johnson wrote: >On 01/29/2009 10:32 PM, Jeff Soules wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote: >>> On 01/29/2009 05:27 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: >>> [snip] >>> >>>> The FSF's interpretation is basically that >>>> anytime GPL licensed code is integral to the functioning of the larger >>>> work (dynamic linking, static linking, IPC, *anytime*) the larger work >>>> must be licensed under the GPL. >>> >>> Note that Linus doesn't agree with that idea. >> >> I think I'm confused -- in that case, wouldn't Linux be the >> larger work? > >Yes, but it's *dynamically* linked. Linus takes (or, at least, he >took, the last time I cared to look) the position that dynamic >liking is fundamentally different than static linking. While I didn't bookmark it and it would be incredibly difficult to find, there is, on the internet, one review of the GPLv2 by a law professor that actually touches on this. Executive Summary: Dynamic linking doesn't make a derivative works any more than running two separate binaries from the same RAM, so the FSF's position may be a bit "overzealous". -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.