Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> Martin Dickopp wrote:
> 
> [... "dynamically linked" ...]
> 
> > I think we can agree to disagree here.  This has already been
> > discussed so many times that it's unlikely that either one of us
> > will come up with a new argument.
> 
> Good luck trying to convince a {non-drunken} judge that the use of
> dlopen() may result in criminal penalties under copyright law
> (because {under GNU law} it would violate exclusive right of
> copyright owners to create derivative works).

I thought that copyright cases were dealt with under the civil code?
But there is a fine line between calling dlopen and dynamically
linking a program: in the latter case, symbol addresses are resolved
and scattered through the caller.  The calling code is adapted to the
called library and can't call a different one after linking.

In contrast, just using dlopen and dlsym does not merge the
code of the dynamically linked library and the caller.

I doubt, however, that the technical difference between dlopen/dlsym
and dynamic linking would matter at all to a judge and jury, much like
I doubt that the difference between dynamic and static linking would
matter much: the point is that two non-functional entities are
combined into one that can do the job.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum