Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> writes: > On 3/25/2010 11:30 AM, David Kastrup wrote: >> It would appear that you are not familiar with the realities of dynamic >> linking on UNIX-like operating systems. Dynamically linked libraries >> (we are not talking about Windows DLLs here) are carefully versioned and >> tend to become incompatible with their predecessors pretty regularly. >> That's why you need to compile a program using dynamic libraries with >> the corresponding header versions for the API versioning. > > That's irrelevant. If you do not copy and distribute the library as > part of the program, then the license of the library cannot affect > the right to copy and distribute the program.
If the program can't be compiled (and successfully prelinked) without inclusion of the corresponding library headers, it is somewhat strange to argue that the creation of the binaries is an act independent from the library, just because the _binaries_ of the library are loaded at a later point of time. You may be ferociously defending your own legal theories, but as long as nobody wants actually to rely on such a theory to a degree where he is willing to let himself be taken to court over it, that's academical. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
