On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 10:35, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > > > > > Please show us *where* in the GPL/LGPL are the words "static linking" > > > > and "Dynamic linking" used? > > > Nowhere, but it's how the FSF interprets the LGPL/GPL and how courts > > > have interpreted it, when sentencing SW vendors trying to use GPL'ed SW > > > in closed source projects. > > > > Court decision please? I wasn't aware that any GPL case had been > > settled in court. > Here we go: http://www.jbb.de/html/?page=news&id=32 > > or > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040725150736471 > > Ralf Thanks. This appears to have been a pretty clear case of removing original copyright notices and redistributing covered material. The part that is still very questionable is the FSF claim that distributing separate code that the user links to or compiles with their own copy of GPL'd code can create a covered 'derived work'. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
