Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

[Les Mikesell]

Alan Cox wrote:
>>> But you see that library is the GPL authors code and they've exercised
>>> their right as an author to decide what they do with their code.
>> No, they've gone well beyond that in claiming that your own code which 
>> calls that library's interfaces is also under their control.
> 
> I think you are still reading "linking" as code. Also remember that the
> GPLv2 actually pretty much predates "normal" use of dynamic linking.

Yes, we need a much clearer definition.  I am still thinking of the 
RIPEM case where the action was against a free source distribution that 
expected the user to link with his own copy of a certain library at 
compile time.


>>> Anyway you can always write an alternative library.
>> How can the existence of a different library make any difference to the 
>> status of another piece of code that might use it? 
> 
> Bingo..
> 
> That is the heart of the question - are you just using some generic
> interface (and US caselaw is mostly against API copyright) or are you
> creating a new work which incorporates an existing work.

The strange part is that this concept can change after the fact or by 
the existence of code you didn't know about. I think the legal system 
will have a problem with it.

> Just as with books - am I creating a book referencing another work or a
> book that incorporates chunks of another book, and that depends on
> context and isn't entirely clear - see the current Harry Potter lawsuit.

Book examples aren't very similar.  For example, you don't get a Harry 
Potter book with a license that permits unrestricted use and 
redistribution under certain terms.  And the copyright wouldn't permit a 
similar book to be written which would change the status of the one in 
question.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com