On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 11:14 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote: > I find this discussion ultimately absurd. Debian is *not* > distributing a derivative work. Debian does *not* distribute a work > that includes both plugins/libraries. The fact that the things are > (dynamically) linked at run time, especially combined with the fact > that the plugins are opened with dlopen() and use stable API, is > *more* than enough to lift any (inexistent IMHO) "no-link" > requirement of the GPL.
I find most of this response confusing. First of all, it's clear that Debian *is* distributing a derived work based on GPLed libraries, called "Debian GNU/Linux". The specific case in question may fall under the "mere aggregation" clause of the GPL, but then this is the point you should argue. I abhor imprecision in these discussions, as they are the breeding ground for all kinds of myths and speculation. (Not that I am immune to imprecision, or that I am not occasionally a myth-monger in my own right. But I welcome the correction.) Second, you seem to be asserting that an app and its dynamically linked libraries do not constitute a derived work based on both for the purposes of the GPL. Rather than debate this point, I think it best to point out that this runs counter to accepted precedent within Debian that dates back a long time; see the KDE/Qt controversy for a famous example. Basing conclusions on this past precedent is not "absurd"; indeed, it would seem that the onus is on you to prove your assertion. That's probably enough for starters. If I am indeed confused and you are correct, then there doesn't seem much point to proceed to the dlopen() question.
