On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 08:51:03PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote: > A dynamically-linked kghostview is completely non-functional without > the Qt library. Qt is irrevocably bound up in that executable, > whether or not any of Qt's code is actually contained in kghostview. > (Besides which, some of Qt's code will be contained in the executable, > due to Qt's slot concept which [IIRC] requires preprocessing of the > source.)
I'll agree with you here. > Hypothetical: I build something under a proprietary license, and then > use the dl*() calls to access a GPLed library (let's use Readline for > example). Even though my software doesn't strictly-speaking contain > Readline, it doesn't function without it being present. I'm clearly > going beyond "mere aggregation" or using a fork-exec. I don't agree with you here. The GPL doesn't say that. This is one of those cases where you're deliberately trying to work around the GPL and in this case it is my (non-professional layman's) opinion that you would have succeeded. Of course you do that and we'll have to lynch you or something because we're at times a militant lot and you'd be doing something the GPL's spirit condemns, even if its letter permits.. There is a BSDish readline clode whose interface matches readline's.. If you wrote your dl*() access of libreadline using that non-GPL'd interface definition, you would have succeeded in circumventing the GPL. Now if you pulled something like that with a M$ EULA (much harder to do, they cover all bases better) you'd get sued anyway because M$ would know that you would run out of money first. And even if you didn't, they could argue that you were essentially doing what you were---trying to find a loophole to allow you to do something you are not permitted to do. They would argue your intent makes you guilty of violating the EULA whether you violated its letter or not. They'd have a chance at winning it too, even thouch contract law pretty much says quite the opposite (ie, that if their contract DOESN'T provide for such a case, it's their own fault, etc) The law is not applied universally in this case. A lot of lattitude is granted to "computer industry" companies to protect their software that doesn't apply to Copyrights on books or anything else for that matter. You or I could not sue someone for violating the spirit of a license and win, but someone like M$ could. (I pick on them because they're an easy target...) It doesn't have to make sense.. I am talking about US law related to computers and technology. The people making the laws are clueless. The people upholding the laws equally so. It is almost always a case of best lawyer wins, regardless of the laws on the books. A sorry state of affairs. I could delve further into your message, but the primary point I need to address is that there are no points for violating the spirit of the GPL here. We're not big software companies so we're not going to have much leeway to claim a violation of the spirit means anything except that the GPL doesn't cover the case in question properly. -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian Linux developer http://tank.debian.net GnuPG key pub 1024D/DCF9DAB3 sub 2048g/3F9C2A43 http://www.debian.org 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3 "I am ecstatic that some moron re-invented a 1995 windows fuckup." -- Alan Cox
pgpqCnjhKUeKS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
