David Johnson wrote: > > I say "almost completely" because I think the burden of proof should > > shift to the creator of an alleged derivative work to demonstrate either > > (1) the DLL was designed and intended to be invoked dynamically by > > programs that are not "derivative works" of that DLL, or (2) the > > proprietary program that invokes that DLL doesn't use dynamic linking > > simply to get around the [GPL] license. > > Your first point is interesting. I'm wondering how one could demonstrate that > a library was meant to be invoked by non-derivative works. Here the criteria > that I would use: the library is a separate distinct package, and the > interface for the library is documented. These two criteria tell me that the > library was intended to be used for multiple programs by multiple authors.
Which still leaves it open to wrapping. LGPL-licensed wrapper service (with a distinct interface from the DLL) calls functionality from GPL DLL. This proxy interface too can be documented, and as said, alternate implementations could be whipped up in a snap, with the actual program being 'designed to' link against the proxy service. Unless LGPL servers can't link against GPL DLLs; I'm not entirely sure on that. Emile -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
