[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GPL question
From: |
Alfred M. Szmidt |
Subject: |
Re: GPL question |
Date: |
Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:47:54 +0200 (CEST) |
I am not a lawyer, so I can only offer a "common sense" opinion:
Which sadly, is not much common sense.
When you choose dynamic linking, you are not including the library,
but only its interface in your product. The users of your product
may or may not opt to use it with the library in question.
You are including code as well, macros for example. The
binary is also combined into one big blob when run, which means that
it does not only share `interface', but memory and everything else as
would be done during static linking.
- Re: GPL question, (continued)
- Re: GPL question, Mike Cox, 2007/10/17
- Re: GPL question, mike3, 2007/10/14
- Re: GPL question, John Hasler, 2007/10/14
- Re: GPL question, mike3, 2007/10/17
- Re: GPL question, John Hasler, 2007/10/17
- Re: GPL question, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2007/10/17
- Message not available
- Re: GPL question, mike3, 2007/10/12
- Re: GPL question, John Hasler, 2007/10/12
- Re: GPL question, mike3, 2007/10/12
Re: GPL question, n . torrey . pines, 2007/10/19
- Re: GPL question,
Alfred M. Szmidt <=
- Message not available
- Re: GPL question, n . torrey . pines, 2007/10/19
- Re: GPL question, Miles Bader, 2007/10/19
- Re: GPL question, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/10/20
- Re: GPL question, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2007/10/23
- Message not available
- Re: GPL question, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/10/23
- Message not available
- Re: GPL question, Miles Bader, 2007/10/23
- Re: GPL question, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2007/10/24
- Message not available
- Re: GPL question, Richard Tobin, 2007/10/25
Re: GPL question, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2007/10/23
Re: GPL question, David Kastrup, 2007/10/23