----- Original Message ----- > From: "Anthony" <[email protected]>
> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Jay Ashworth <[email protected]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Anthony" <[email protected]> > > > >> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Aryeh Gregor > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Linking has no special status in the GPL -- it's just a question > >> > of > >> > what legally constitutes a derivative work. If a C program that > >> > dynamically links to a library is legally a derivative work of > >> > that > >> > library, > >> > >> It isn't. A C program which *contains* a library is legally a > >> derivative work of that library. > > > > Static linking fits that description. Dynamic linking -- through the > > FSF would really like it to -- does not. > > I'm not sure if that's true or not. There's certainly an argument to > be made that dynamic linking creates a derivative work *at the time it > is linked*. Also, there's an even stronger argument that using the > GPL header files to compile the unlinked program creates a derivative > work. (If you want to reverse engineer the header files then you can > get around that problem, but that's a lot of extra work, and in most > cases, such as this one, you might as well convert the library into a > standalone program that can be used via a pipe.) Feist v Rural; header files are *factual data*; no creativity there. The interoperability exception is to the DMCA, I think, not to section 107. None of our opinions matter until there's caselaw, of course, and there isn't. But I think the arguments against headers being copyrightable -- and thereby dynamic linking not being a violation of the GPLv2 -- are pretty strong, myself. Cheers, -- jr 'IANAL' a _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
