From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Feb 21 15:25:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA02744 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 15:25:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from trout.mt.sri.com (trout.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.104]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA02736 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 15:25:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nate@localhost) by trout.mt.sri.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) id QAA06245 for hackers@FreeBSD.org; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 16:25:27 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 16:25:27 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams Message-Id: <199702212325.QAA06245@trout.mt.sri.com> To: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: RMS's view on dynamic linking Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Path: helena.MT.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-11.sprintlink.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!howland.erols.net!netnews.com!netaxs.com!usenet From: mef@netaxs.com (Mike Fessler) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: A GPL license question Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 14:57:25 GMT Organization: netaxs.com Lines: 16 Message-ID: <330db6d0.547238@netnews.netaxs.com> References: <5dt9po$g52$1@nntp2.ba.best.com> <5ee5d3$et4$1@coho.halcyon.com> <5ejkn4$683@pasilla.bbnplanet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: chestnut1-26.slip.netaxs.com X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230 Barry Margolin wrote: : But if the library is a DLL, it's completely independent of the calling : program. There's no code from the library in the executable, so how can it : be considered either a copy or a derivative work? If you distribute them : together, I think this would fall under the "mere aggregation" clause of : the GPL, which doesn't require the executable to fall under the GPL. According to rms, with whom I just corresponded about this issue, that's not so. His view is that linking two programs is not "mere aggregation", regardless or whether it's static or dynamic linking. I agree that resolving this in court would get extremely messy, but there it is. (Heck, many jurors can't even make sense of DNA evidence, and *it's* been all over the press -- I shudder to think of the hash they'd make of a GPL case...)