Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sigh. We have devolved. Every thread on OpenSolaris discuss lists
> seems to devolve into a license discussion.
It is funny to see that in our case, the tecnical problems (those caused
by the fact that linux implements a different VFS interface layer) are
creating much bigger problem than the license issue does.
> I have seen mailing list posts (I'd have to search again) that indicate
> [that some believe] that even dynamic linking via dlopen() qualifies as
> making a derivative.
There is no single place in the GPL that mentions the term "linking".
For this reason, the GPL FAQ from the FSF is wring as it is based on the
term "linking".
There is no difference whether you link statically or dynamically.
Whether using GPLd code from a non-GPLd program creates a "derived work"
thus cannot depend on whether you link agaist it or not. If a GPLd program
however "uses" a non-GPLd library, this is definitely not a problem or
every GPLd program linked against the libc from HP-UX would be a problem.
> If true that would mean that one could not distribute an OpenSolaris
> distribution containing a GPLed PAM module. Or perhaps, because in that
> case the header files needed to make the linking possible are not GPLed
> the linking-makes-derivatives argument would not apply.
If the GPLd PAM module just implements a well known plug in interface,
a program that uses this odule cannot be a derivate of the GPLd code.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
