Chris Smith cdsm...@gmail.com writes:
actually matter. The instant anyone actually compiles an application
that uses your library, however indirectly, they are bound by the terms
There are other uses for code than compilation. Let's say I wrote a
wrapper for a proprietary library that
Dan Knapp dan...@gmail.com writes:
There is a legal distinction between static and dynamic linking,
Well, the obvious distinction is that a dynamically linked executable
doesn't actually contain any code from its libraries, while a statically
linked one does.
In particular, they assert that
On 9 February 2011 23:35, Dan Knapp dan...@gmail.com wrote:
[SNIP]
I believe this means that if we have a
package named hs-save-the-whales that is under the GPL, and a
front-end package hs-redeem-them-for-valuable-cash-prizes which
makes use of the functionality in hs-save-the-whales, the
On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 18:35 -0500, Dan Knapp wrote:
I haven't heard anyone mention this yet, and it's a biggie, so I
guess I'd better de-lurk and explain it. The issue is this: There is
a legal distinction between static and dynamic linking, or at least
some licenses (the GPL is the one I'm
On 10.02.11 12:12, Duncan Coutts wrote:
We are already working on a feature that will show the full set of
licenses that the end user must comply with (a patch has been submitted
and it's been through one round of review so far). In your example that
would mean you expect the set to be {BSD}
On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 12:44 +0100, Stefan Kersten wrote:
On 10.02.11 12:12, Duncan Coutts wrote:
We are already working on a feature that will show the full set of
licenses that the end user must comply with (a patch has been submitted
and it's been through one round of review so far). In
On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 08:59 +0100, Ketil Malde wrote:
I disagree - the linked executable must, but not the wrapper by itself.
It's source code, i.e. text, thus a creative work, and therefore
covered by copyright - on its own.
You're certainly right from a legal standpoint. But being right
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Chris Smith cdsm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 08:59 +0100, Ketil Malde wrote:
I disagree - the linked executable must, but not the wrapper by itself.
It's source code, i.e. text, thus a creative work, and therefore
covered by copyright - on its
On 10 Feb 2011, at 17:38, Antoine Latter wrote:
So no, the instant of compilation is not when the transitive
dependencies kick in, it is the publication of compiled binaries,
which in my mind is a pretty specialized case.
This is possibly the most important point to emphasise, of which many
I haven't heard anyone mention this yet, and it's a biggie, so I
guess I'd better de-lurk and explain it. The issue is this: There is
a legal distinction between static and dynamic linking, or at least
some licenses (the GPL is the one I'm aware of) believe that there is.
In particular, they
10 matches
Mail list logo
