OT: Two ways Microsoft sabotages Linux desktop adoption

[Mike McCarty]

Donald Arseneau wrote:
> Mike McCarty <mike.mccarty at sbcglobal.net> writes:
> 
> 
>>However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates an
>>executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains portions
>>of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the library".
> 
> 
> This "linking" is what we'd normally refer to as "static linking",
> where the library code is included in the executable.  Dynamic 
> linking to a shared object library does not cause portions of the
> library to be included in the executable.

Are you a lawyer? Four corporate lawyers I know were of a different
opinion than you are. All were agreed that if a "linker" were run,
then the code was "linked", and if an "executable" were produced,
which could not run without the "linked code" that the LGPL sections
5 and 6 would apply. They only disagreed over whether it would be
enforceable. IOW, three of them were convinced that eventually a
court would find that the program so produced would not be
considered a "derived work" regardless of the wording of the LGPL,
and the fourth was unsure. All were agreed that sections 5 and
6 were applicable.

IANAL
YMMV

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!