Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:49:19PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > We have already said that, in the context of the GPL, static linking
> > and dynamic linking both make a "single program", and anyone who
> > distributes that program, in parts or as a single whole, with the
> > intention of distributing that "single program", must comply with the
> > GPL as to each of its parts.
> >
> > The "ASP loophole", it seems to me, is merely another technical means
> > for a dynamic link, and should be subject to exactly the same
> > requirements as for all other kinds of dynamic linking.
>
> Context:
>
> > import java.rmi.*;
> > ...
> > // get bar from the network
> > BarInterface bar =
> > (BarInterface)
> > Naming.lookup("//rmi.bar.com/Bar");
> > bar.bar();
>
> What if "rmi.bar.com" is my computer, and I'm making this interface
> available over my network? I'm not distributing Bar; I'm just answering
> requests for an interface. You don't get Bar at all. The "linking"
> concept is less clear-cut here.
The net result is a single program, or it isn't. Let's assume that
what you are doing really is just the same kind of thing you'd do with
dynamic linking and making a single program. Then this is all just a
technical subterfuge.
If this code fragment were then added to a GPL'd program, and
distributed, with the intention that people would run it and thus link
it with rmi.bar.com's non-free code, in order to produce a program
without source, then the result is that the GPL (as it stands *now*)
is violated, just as much as if rmi.bar.com distributed an ordinary
.so.
And the result is then that the distribution of the
GPL'd-program-with-that-code-fragment-added is in violation of the
GPL, being a knowing contribution to an infringement.
Thomas
