Re: Question About GNU General Public License

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
> > Just for the record, I mentioned this once already: dynamic linking
> > enters a lot of binary addresses into a program, making it an image
> > in memory that is completely dependent and "linked" with the library
> > in question.  Calling dlopen from inside of a module to load a
> > library and call its functions explicitly instead of by linking
> > doesn't.
> 
> So what? Linking (both static and dynamic) is the same as framing 
> and mounting.

Only if you screw the canvas to the frame with decorative screws
placed in well-chosen spots.  Linking, whether static or dynamic,
changes the program and can't be undone.  In contrast to calling
dlopen, which can be undone with dlclose.

> http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/125_F3d_580.htm
> 
> <quote>
> 
> If the framing process does not create a derivative work, then 
> mounting [...] does not create a derivative work.
[...]
> </quote>

Of course, you'll cite court cases where it has been decided that
static and dynamic linking are to be considered equivalent to framing
and mounting a picture.

Could be somewhat difficult, given that copyright law actually
contains _quite_ a few paragraphs that don't apply to both pictures
and programs.

> > While this is a fine line, it is obviously thick enough to have
> > caused RMS to refuse letting a module loader (which would have
> > used dlopen) be put into Emacs because he thinks that in that case
> > Emacs/proprietary combinations could become more legally viable
> > than desirable.
> 
> Yeah. I know quite well that RMS is amusingly insane.

Better than somebody being boringly insane.

[More completely irrelevant links to the topic of discussion snipped]

You really must be proud of your random link collection.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum