Don Armstrong wrote: [...] > The argument of the FSF has been (and continues to be, TTBOMK) that > dynamic linking with a GPLed work forms a derivative work when the > binary is distributed.
I have yet to see any arguments from the FSF apart from baseless and totally lunatic claims regarding derivative works and linking. http://web.novalis.org/talks/compliance-for-developers/slide-49.html [begin textual copying] July 27, 2004 GPL Compliance for Software Developers Legal notes ---------------------------------------------------------------- Legal notes Static linking creates a derivative work through textual copying Most dynamic linking cases involve distributing the library Still a derivative work: Dynamic linking Distributing only the executable (testtriangle) Still a derivative work: Distributing the source code of software which links to a library when that library is the only software to provide that interface ----------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright (C) 2004, Free Software Foundation. Verbatim copying permitted provided this notice is preserved. [end textual copying] I suppose that "through textual copying", this message *and all archives* (google's, etc.) that now contain it, constitute unauthorized (note that only verbatim copying was permitted) "derivative work" (under the GNU Constitution -- aka the GPL) of the FSF's "legal notes". And given that it's all linked on the net... I've thoroughly contaminated the entire Internet. Oh my bad. regards, alexander.
