On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 07:13:55PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 04:21:18PM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote: > > > > > > That said, I think we can all pretty well agree that copying code > > > verbatim > > > from or into the body of a program's source code is covered by the GPL and > > > that this discussion can safely end here. I'm tired of hearing about it. > > > > If tehy made headers public domain, would it resolve problem ? > > If you look at it from a very weird angle it may look like it. Maybe it will > solve the legal problems if you are careful at not distributing the > executable (which is not executable any more :) with the library objects. > > First, if you distribute them together, the situation is quite clear, as the > work as a whole includes the libraries. > > However, even if you don't, you can make the point that the work as a whole > includes the libraries anyway, as the executable will be useless without > them. > > If you can provide a functional and free stub library, perhaps with limited > functionality, it is much simpler (because now you can ship this). I think > this was done with libreadline (or planned at least).
Does copyright law see any difference between shared library linking and pipe/corba/socket linking ? Does copyright law see any difference between calling library, when it is .so object/kernel module/kernel buildin ?
