On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 12:16 -0500, Henry Hartley wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 11:35 AM Ralf Corsepius said: > >> > >> On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 10:25 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > >> > On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 10:14, 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 > > There's nothing in that case dealing with static vs. dynamic linking. Well, only indirectly. The court decided upon "firmware using GPL'ed code", i.e. a "derivative work". However, dynamic vs. static linkage is the core point of LGPL vs. GPL and is how the FSF interprets and enforces the [L]GPL. It's the a "derivative work" vs. "a work using" aspect. BTW: An interesting collection of further readings related to this topic http://www.ifross.de/ifross_html/links.html#Recht > The defendant in the case was in trouble for distributing object code > without making available the source code to netfilter/iptables and for > failing to properly attribute that code. It has nothing whatsoever, as > far as I can see, to do with his own code. Well, the court had to decide on "if the defendant was legitimated to use the GPL'ed code in their product". The court decided "no" and disallowed them to to sell their product without making their sources available to the public. AFAIK, the defendant withdrew his product from the German market. Ralf
