Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Tim Churches wrote:
>
> > Thus, it seems to me, and to the expert legal advice which we sought
> (note the scope of the advice
> > was Australian law only) that provided no GLPed source or object code
> is mixed, included or
> > combined with non-GPLed code
>
> and how exactly are you going to load a DLL from an EXE file with-
> out "mixing, including, or combining" the two?
You can't, but as long as that "mixing, including, or combining" only occurs at
runtime,
the GPL itself specifically says that is out of scope and the GPL does not
apply. Their
words, not mine - to quote (yet again):
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered
by this
License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not
restricted,..."
No argument from me that combination of source code or static linking is
covered by
the GPL, but runtime(-only) linking of two programmes which do not share any
code
and which are distributed as clear separate packages would seem to be out of
scope
of the GPL. Note that deeming the making of runtime calls on a GPLed library
as "modification" of that GPLed library would be drawing a very long bow
indeed, given
that elsewhere in the GPL it says (as included commentary):
"Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your
rights to work
written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control
the
distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program."
Now, I concede that the use of the adjective "collective" in the above
commentary does
make things even less clear. However, Section 0 of the GPL specifically defines
what
is meant by "a work based on the {GPLed] Program", to wit:
"The 'Program', below, refers to any such program or work, and a 'work based on
the
Program' means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is
to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or
with
modifications and/or translated into another language."
So there you have it: there must be some portion of the GPLed Program contained
in
the other work for it to fall under the scope of the GPL, and/or as defined as
a
derivative work in local copyright law (local because the GPL does not nominate
a
particular jurisdiction for covering law).
Clear as mud.
Tim C
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
