Subject: Re: Dynamic linking, was: Re: Dispelling BSD License Misconceptions
From: Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:23:06 -0500
Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:23:06 -0500
Russ Nelson wrote:
> Matthew Flaschen writes:
>  > Sticking to the example of readline and Python, part of the code is
>  > still specifically written to depend on readline.  I think under Eben's
>  > argument, this part would then be a derivative work.  Thus, that part at
>  > least should be licensed under the GPL.
> 
> Should it be licensed under the GPL before or after it's linked to
> readline?  After all, the authors of Python have no control over what
> code I actually link it to.  I might link it to readline; I might link
> it to lineread, a 100% compatible implementation of readline which is
> in the public domain, and which imposes no licensing obligation
> whatsoever.

This isn't a simple issue.  Again, IANAL and these are just my thoughts.
 However, I think it would depend whether the code is designed to use
GNU readline, the PD version, or just the API.  If no one can prove it
was meant for GNU readline, it probably isn't a copyright infrigement.

Matthew Flaschen



["application/pgp-signature" not shown]