Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:24:55 -0700 From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> To: <tedm@toybox.placo.com>, <chat@freebsd.org> Cc: TM4525@aol.com Subject: RE: GPL vs BSD Licence Message-ID: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKGEGBPGAA.davids@webmaster.com> In-Reply-To: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNCEJBEPAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> The GPL and Linux don't care if you link into their system libraries, > they expect that which is why the system libraries are LGPLd > > What they care about is linking into libraries (like readline) which > they consider "their" work. If you do it, regardless of whether you > use those library headers or use a translation think like you are > outlining here, you must GPL your stuff. > > The contamination comes from linking in, even dynamically, not from > just using ascii source files. Since the linking occurs *after* the distribution, it's part of use. How a work is used, after its made and distributed, can't make it a derived work of another work. The only way the GPL can be mandatory is if the thing it is claimed to be mandatory for is a derived work. If I write a piece of code that uses a defined interface, it's utterly preposterous to argue that it is derivative from an *implementation* of that interface, since it could be used with *any* implementation of that interface. It is, of course, derivative of the interface itself, which is why I clearly specified that you should use your own interface. DS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKGEGBPGAA.davids>