Donald Arseneau wrote:
Mike McCarty <mike.mccarty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Donald Arseneau wrote:
Mike McCarty <mike.mccarty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates an
executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains portions
of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the library".
This "linking" is what we'd normally refer to as "static linking",
where the library code is included in the executable. Dynamic linking to a
shared object library does not cause portions of the
library to be included in the executable.
Are you a lawyer? Four corporate lawyers I know were of a different
opinion than you are.
No I am not a lawyer, and so I am capable of understanding the license.
Lawyers are clueless as to when portions of a library are included in
an executable. You should have given them more technical support.
You weren't there. Why do you suppose it took days? We argued and
argued. I used the same argument you did.
All were agreed that if a "linker" were run,
then the code was "linked",
"Linking" also means a html reference like <a href=...>. By your logic
that would also virally propagate the GPL.
The issue is not what the lawyers believed about the
license, but what the lawyers believed one could get a jury to
understand.
And anyway, whether the lawyers are right or are wrong is
irrelevant. It's what they say that's important, because
that is what is going to dictate company actions. And if the
lawyers act nervous, it isn't going to be done.
Period.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
