Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs

[Martin Dickopp]

cstacy@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:

>>>>>> On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 21:33:47 +0200, Martin Dickopp ("Martin") writes:
>
>  Martin> cstacy@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
>  >>>>>>> On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 21:04:01 +0200, Martin Dickopp ("Martin") writes:
>  Martin> A memory dump of the running program could only be
>  Martin> distributed if the license terms of both the executable
>  Martin> and the library are followed.
>  >> 
>  >> But we're not making a memory dump and distributing it.
>
>  Martin> I don't know what you mean by "we", but since making a memory dump is
>  Martin> (or was; I'm not sure if it's still done this way) part of building 
> GNU
>  Martin> Emacs, there are indeed many entities which have made and distributed
>  Martin> memory dumps.  In fact, I am one such entity.
>
> I thought we were talking about dynamic linking.

I don't see how it makes a difference from a legal point of view if the
dynamically loaded code is a compiled library or Lisp code, so I assume
that this falls under the topic of dynamic linking.

That said, I have indeed not fully understood what your point is.  I was
explaining what I believe a court would and what I believe a court
wouldn't consider a derivate work.  The fact that I believe a memory
dump of a dynamically linked program would be considered a derivative
work of both the program and the library is true irrespectively of
whether that is actually done.

Martin