On 2004-01-31 14:01:42 +0000 MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2004-01-30 19:31:44 +0000 paul cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If XFree86 does not consider linking to create a derived work which > > must carry the same restrictions as those in the library, then it > > does not seem there is a problem; an application linking against Qt > > and Xlib could be solely under the GPL. Or am I off my rocker here? > > Does XFree86 have some extensions that they developed? If so, how can > it not be a derived work if you use those XFree86 extensions? It would > be a mess, looking at each application.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that the FSF's opinion on this is not universal. That is, it is not an irrational view that dynamically linking to a library is only _using_ that library, not creating a derived work from it. It seems to me rather like using a command line utility in a script. One might make wide use of GNU grep extensively in a proprietary program, for example, and do so without affecting or worrying about the license on grep at all. As another example, a command line program could wrap the functionality of nearly all libraries. If someone didn't want to link a program with libcurl, one would simply invoke /usr/bin/curl and get much of the same functionality. Should these be different actions from a licensing standpoint? As always, let me know if I seem to be on crack. -- paul cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
