Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 10:39:05PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > "Still a derivative work: > > > > * Distributing the source code of software which links to a library" > > > > -- Copyright (c) 2004, Free Software Foundation. > > I can't find anything in those slides which provides a basis for that claim, > and the technical issues surrounding such a claim are very complex. I'd be > interested to see a video or something of a talk associated with these > slides, to see if there's any additional context which the speaker provides > to back up this claim. As it stands, this looks like a line the author > pickup around the office koolaid-cooler.
The FSF makes very similar claims without additional context in their GPL FAQ: Q: If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL? A: Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL Q: You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to build a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your program mean I have to GPL my program? A: Yes. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL The second answer seems overly simplistic: even if the linking created a derivative work, the GPL's requirements only apply when you distribute the derivative work. People may easily interpret the above as meaning that you _have_ to publish such a work even if the derivative work was purely for internal use. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
