Mail Archives: cygwin/2000/05/03/10:39:41
DJ Delorie wrote:
> ...(snip)
> > The static linking case is clear.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > Dynamic linking is not so clear, it is likely covered by the GPL but
> > who knows for sure.
>
> My claim is that the fact that it's dynamically linked is irrelevent;
> all that is relevent is whether there are two independent works
> involved, or only one.
... (snip)
And this is the area of disagreement. I feel that since a dynamically
linked chunk of code only specifies the interface, and not the internals,
that the internals are not parts of the same work. In particular it is
certainly possible to have multiple hunks of code with the same name and
effectively the same interface (minor variations may exist) because that
is the source of windows "dll hell". If there can be multiple versions
that do very different things, after the manner of things returned by a
factory pattern, then I don't see them as being the same work at all. And
since the caller doesn't know which of the different versions it will get,
it can't be a part of the same work either.
IANAL. But this is my opinion.
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
- Raw text -