[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The worst that can happen to GPLed code

From: Stefaan A Eeckels
Subject: Re: The worst that can happen to GPLed code
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 23:34:41 +0200

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 20:34:17 +0200
Alexander Terekhov <> wrote:
> Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> [...]
> > Not really, as his doing so would imply a copy,
> > but he could comply with the GPL and put up the
> > source as well. This would allow you to argue that
> > you have a lawfull copy of the object file, and
> > apply first sale to it. 
> I'll take it that you agree that dynamic linking and distribution 
> of GPLed libraries together with non-GPLed stuff is OK. You only
> object the static linking. Right?

I've indeed argued that dynamic linking does not make
the program a derivative work of the library, whereas
static linking does indeed produce a work that is a
derivative work of both the library and the original
code of the program. 

If you want to write a program that uses modules from
a GPLed work, and structure it such that these modules
are in a dynamic library, and package the thing so that
you clearly separate your work from the GPLed work, and
comply fully with the GPL, I would not sue you if I were
the author of the GPLed work. 

Others might sue - the FSF most certainly would. And there
is no lawyer who'll guarantee you that you'll prevail, so
it just might not be worth it. 

Finally, why go against the stated wishes of the author
or copyright holder? It's not that using the GPL is some
kind of abomination that needs to be circumvented to keep
the Universe's moral balance intact, is it?

Take care,

"What is stated clearly conceives easily."  -- Inspired sales droid

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]