Richard Stallman writes: > A simple example: it is totally trivial on Windows to build a 'service' > from a DLL, exposing its entire interface. This would be running as a > separate executable, but would look like a regular library to any > windows program. > > The FSF's position is that the GPL applies to any programs which are > designed to link with that DLL, that this is legally equivalent to > statically linking them.
That is your position because it must be your position, not because there is any legal viability to the argument. How do you know that such an intention was there? Perhaps the program was designed to link with another, compatible non-GPL DLL, and mere compatibility allows it to link with the GPL DLL? I really don't know what a judge would say, and I expect that you don't know either. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | Crypto without a threat Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | model is like cookies 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | without milk. Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
