Darren J Moffat wrote: > Kyle McDonald wrote: >> I thought that shared libraries resolved this, since the 'linking' was >> done at run time by the end user, and not the distributor. The >> distributor is, as I understand it the one that is prevented from >> linking (and then distributing) GPL and non-GPL code. So static >> linking is out, but dynamic linking should be ok, no? >> >> Is that a too simplistic reading of the license? > > Yes it is to simplistic a view unfortunately. However this is no the > place (the ARC aliases are not for license interpretation discussion) > and I am not the person (I am not a lawyer or otherwise sufficiently > trained) to explain to you why. >
Okay, if the world hasn't changed, then I think it is enough to just note the issue and move on. But when this is submitted to the open source review it should definitely be noted there so that the lawyers actually do get a chance to knowingly figure it out. -- blu There are two rules in life: Rule 1- Don't tell people everything you know ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Utterback - Solaris RPE, Sun Microsystems, Inc. Ph:877-259-7345, Em:brian.utterback-at-ess-you-enn-dot-kom
