At 2007-02-24 19:05:02 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Because in static linking, the binary code is directly included in the > executable unlike in dynamic linking in which there are references and > the code is used at runtime.
Thanks, I know what static linking is. As I understand it, however, directly including the binary code into the executable doesn't necessarily constitute a derived work under copyright law. If I compile an unmodified GPLed source file and link the resulting object with another object that uses none of the symbols defined by the GPLed one, and distribute the result without providing the original GPL source, am I infringing by distributing a copyrighted work without the author's permission to do so, and which happens to be aggregated with something else, or by creating a derived work? Also, since you admit the possibility of a dynamically linked program not being derived from what it's linked to, are you really saying that adding -Bstatic while recompiling changes the status of the executable as a matter of copyright *law*? I do not think copyright law defines derivation in the same way that the FSF does, and I think the question of whether something may constitute a derived work or not is one of fact, not law, and certainly not one that hinges on what linker technology is in use. > Glibc is licensed under LGPL[1]. That's a mere detail, and doesn't affect whether something linked to it may be considered a derived work or not. -- ams
