From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 30 05:48:52 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F3D116A4CE for ; Sat, 30 Oct 2004 05:48:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.192.90]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC5C543D53 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 2004 05:48:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from tedwin2k (nat-rtr.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.197.130]) i9U5mnY09012; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:48:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: , Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:48:48 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal cc: TM4525@aol.com Subject: RE: GPL vs BSD Licence X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 05:48:52 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: David Schwartz [mailto:davids@webmaster.com] > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 9:25 AM > To: tedm@toybox.placo.com; chat@freebsd.org > Cc: TM4525@aol.com > 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. That is one of the arguments. But, the GPL is concerned with distribution. I think this has been raised before with them. I think that the scenario was, if I make a program that dynamically links into GPL, then I distribute both my program and the GPL code that it links into, do I have to put my program under GPL? I think their answer was yes - they argued that when the linking takes place and who links it is immaterial, and that the fact that your program cannot run without their stuff means that when your code is running, that your program and their stuff become as a single program. This is why they created the LGPL. > > 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. > And if you found some non-GPL program that created the exact same interface as your program needs, and distributed it and your program together, then all this is a moot issue. > It is, of course, derivative of the interface itself, which is why I > clearly specified that you should use your own interface. > > DS > > >