Hyman Rosen <[email protected]> writes: > On 2/2/2010 10:55 AM, David Kastrup wrote: >> If you think that copyright law gives you a free ride for stuff that >> works only after linking, it is clear that you have to base your case on >> something other than the GPL's wording: you will have to show yourself >> that the GPL cannot cover the resulting combination, by virtue of your >> local copyright laws. The GPL certainly does not say that on its own. > > In the US it's simple enough. A dynamically linked program > (shipped without the libraries which it will use at runtime) > does not contain those libraries. Certainly the source for > such a program does not contain them.
Huh? You can't compile without including the library header files, and including them certainly affects code generation. > And the GPL imposes no requirements on running a program. It talks about "complete work". If the work can't be considered complete without a linking stage initiated by running an incomplete stub intended to link a particular library into precompiled places, I don't see that the resulting situation is clearly as you want to picture it, and independent of further factors like the involved particulars and court attenders. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
