Mail Archives: cygwin/2000/05/03/10:59:41
At 11:30 AM 5/3/00, Charles Hixson wrote:
>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.
>
Perhaps its worthwhile, if people want to discuss the GPL and its details,
and offer their opinions on its interpretation, that this discussion move
to a forum that discusses such things. I'm not sure that this list's
bandwidth is best consumed by those offering their interpretation of the GPL
when there are other places where such things are addressed. Just a
thought...
Larry Hall lhall AT rfk DOT com
RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com
118 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX
(508) 560-1285 - cell phone
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
- Raw text -