Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > What if there was a package wget++ that communicated with openssl >> > entirely through system() or exec() calls? It would construct >> > appropriate input and parse openssl's output. Would that constitute >> > linking? It ends up using all of the same code as the directly linked >> > version. >> >> The Gnus newsreader, running under Emacs, does precisely this, and has >> done so for many years. >> >> > If it is not linking, why couldn't you do this with all GPL'd >> > libraries? You could write a GPL'd wrapper around a library, and just >> > use the wrapper with exec(). >> >> A while back, the general agreement seemed to be that this would be >> allowed. > > I don't doubt you, but when was that? It would be good to see > surrounding discussion.
Sorry, I didn't have time to dig the archives. I was thinking of the thread starting at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/11/msg00008.html, though I'm sure it's been discussed more than once. >> > In essence, why does using exec() suddenly break the chain, while a >> > linker or classloader does not? >> >> I don't see an obvious difference, but the GPL FAQ does mention this >> distinction. > > I think this is really the point of contention. There is no good > reason to say that exec() is a magic boundary. The GPL FAQ also says that exec() isn't always the boundary, it depends on what the programs communicate with each other. > That is why I don't see the difference between linking in the C > sense and calling libraries through an interpreter. Interpreters are a different issue from the exec() situation. The program being interpreted generally does not communicate with the interpreter at all. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
