OT: Two ways Microsoft sabotages Linux desktop adoption

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 23:08 -0800, Bob Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 18:41 -0800, 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.
> 
> Please show us *where* in the GPL/LGPL are the words "static linking"
> and "Dynamic linking" used? 
Nowhere, but it's how the FSF interprets the LGPL/GPL and how courts
have interpreted it, when sentencing SW vendors trying to use GPL'ed SW
in closed source projects.

>  I have to agree with many others here.
> Linux/GNU, as currently licensed is dead in the water for any commercial
> development use.
You are plain wrong.

Linking commercial/closed source works against LGPL'ed libraries doesn't
violate the LGPL, linking them against GPL'ed binaries does.

Ralf