On Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 08:15:56PM +0200, Eran Tromer wrote: > As for the distinction you propose: what's the essential difference > between use via loadable libraries and and use via pipe commands?
In one case, you're using the application as it was planned to be used by a "user". In the other case, you're using it as it was planned to be used by a developer. Users have to abide by certain rules; developers - by others. > Either > can be easily used to simulate the other (at least in the normal case > where the library and app don't share memory buffers and such), so the > two cases are equivalent up to overhead. Equivalent from a technical standpoint, but different from an "intent to use" standpoint. > Put otherwise, if pipes block > GPLness then I can just put a pipe-based RPC wrapper around the GPL > library (using CORBA or RMI or custom code or whatever) and voila, it > can be used in in proprietary programs. Somewhat odd. You're right, and people have been doing this sort of thing for many years with mixed open source / binary only kernel modules, for example. -- Muli Ben-Yehuda http://www.mulix.org | http://www.livejournal.com/~mulix "the nucleus of linux oscillates my world" - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
