Alan Cox wrote:
But you see that library is the GPL authors code and they've exercised
their right as an author to decide what they do with their code.
No, they've gone well beyond that in claiming that your own code which
calls that library's interfaces is also under their control.
I think you are still reading "linking" as code. Also remember that the
GPLv2 actually pretty much predates "normal" use of dynamic linking.
Yes, we need a much clearer definition. I am still thinking of the
RIPEM case where the action was against a free source distribution that
expected the user to link with his own copy of a certain library at
compile time.
Anyway you can always write an alternative library.
How can the existence of a different library make any difference to the
status of another piece of code that might use it?
Bingo..
That is the heart of the question - are you just using some generic
interface (and US caselaw is mostly against API copyright) or are you
creating a new work which incorporates an existing work.
The strange part is that this concept can change after the fact or by
the existence of code you didn't know about. I think the legal system
will have a problem with it.
Just as with books - am I creating a book referencing another work or a
book that incorporates chunks of another book, and that depends on
context and isn't entirely clear - see the current Harry Potter lawsuit.
Book examples aren't very similar. For example, you don't get a Harry
Potter book with a license that permits unrestricted use and
redistribution under certain terms. And the copyright wouldn't permit a
similar book to be written which would change the status of the one in
question.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
