On Sun 22 Nov 2020 at 11:23, Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 11:03:31AM +0100, Alexander Burger wrote: >> In my understanding it is irrelevant how the library is linked, or the fact >> that >> pil21 "depends" on it > > This is all such a mess! What is "linking" other than calling external code at > runtime? > > In pil you can call any other library at any time with 'native'. At that > moment > the library gets linked. How should we prevent that?
it is only mess because you really want to find a loophole > Or calling a GPLed program with (call "program" "arg" ...). This is > functionally > also equivalen to linking, as it "uses" the code in another program. it is completely different otherwise you could use rlwrap as already suggested and call it a day and you already clearly explained, why rlwrap is not an option iirc > If 'native' does not violate the GPL, then pil21 could be rewritten to use > 'native' to call the readline API. this is what Stallman said to Haible: The FSF position would be that this is still one program, which has only been disguised as two. The reason it is still one program is that the one part clearly shows the intention for incorporation of the other part. I say this based on discussions I had with our lawyer long ago. The issue first arose when NeXT proposed to distribute a modified GCC in two parts and let the user link them. Jobs asked me whether this was lawful. It seemed to me at the time that it was, following reasoning like what you are using; but since the result was very undesirable for free software, I said I would have to ask the lawyer. What the lawyer said surprised me; he said that judges would consider such schemes to be "subterfuges" and would be very harsh toward them. He said a judge would ask whether it is "really" one program, rather than how it is labeled. So I went back to Jobs and said we believed his plan was not allowed by the GPL. The direct result of this is that we now have an Objective C front end. They had wanted to distribute the Objective C parser as a separate proprietary package to link with the GCC back end, but since I didn't agree this was allowed, they made it free. So I don't think the GPL actually requires a correction for this. But perhaps it would be a good idea to add a note explaining this. you are not the only one trying to find loopholes in GPL. you should read why clisp is under GPL. another thought experiment: say my customers ban GPL software on their machines. 0 GPL there. would i be able to use pil21 for those customers? no because pil21 needs GPL software. -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
