On 6 Jan 2003, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > One of the questions about "Derivative Work" as it relates to binary > > only loadable objects, is the creation of a boundary layer of execution. > > Specifically, the design and publishing an API which properly glues into > > an open source gpl program or kernel(ie loadable modules services) designed > > to provide an execution layer between the GPL and Commerial private code. > > Where as no GPL code in any form is allowed to touch the Commerial code. > > The converse is true, obviously. The execution layer or boundary. > > Now using this reference from 1995, many companies have gotten legal > > positions about binary modules. > > > > http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b0rbb%245iu%40klaava.helsinki.fi > > What Linus says presumably is valid for Linux. RMS agrees with that > in the message you forwarded. It doesn't necessarily apply to any > program other than Linux. Note in particular the last paragraph in > Linus's message.
If all one is using are headers or .h files and everything else is from scratch, does using the headers under the statement above comply with the intent? I am not seeking an opinion without paying for it. > > I ship and sell binary only products, so I have an interest in not > > restricting people. > > Other than your customers, presumably. Restrictions cut both ways. In what way would a restrict cut both ways here? I am a little naive, but always try to do the right thing. Regards, Andre -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
