On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 01:41:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 07:01:00PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Nevertheless the inclusion of header files *is* the key point of an
> > often-heard argument that the dynamic linkage is a violation.
> Which probably reflects a lack of understanding of copyright law as much
> as anything else.
Quite plausibly. I can't find any real references for the legal reasoning
either way though. My lawyer-student friend couldn't offer any real
enlightenment beyond `this is what the LGPL says', either.
> For the case of U.S. copyright law dynamic linking not explicitly provided
> for in the license is a fair use issue, not a "this isn't covered by
> copyright law" issue.
Australia doesn't have fair use provisions, as I understand it, btw. I
hope that doesn't mean we're not allowed to use dynamically linked
libraries. (`implied permission' would come to mind as an excuse) :-/
> At least... that's the way I currently understand it. [And, if anyone
> can provide some legal reference which proves that I'm wrong, I'd be
> happy to see it.]
Please. (The LGPL simply asserts that binaries linked statically or against
a shared library are derived works, it doesn't give any reasoning for it)
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
Attachment:
pgpdtUDuT1I2f.pgp
Description: PGP signature