Subject: Re: ADOSFS and GPL
To: None <email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Olaf Seibert <email@example.com>
Date: 02/15/1994 11:29:25
David Jones <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Although no precedent has been set, the FSF takes a dim view of anyone using
> techniques such as this to "work around" the GPL. The FSF considers pretty
> well ALL dynamic link libraries to be equivalent to statically linked libs.
It seems that not enough people are aware of the Library Public License,
called COPYING.LIB on most gnu ftp sites.
I quote from the preamble:
For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis
or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave
you. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source
code. If you link a program with the library, you must provide
complete object files to the recipients so that they can relink them
with the library, after making changes to the library and recompiling
it. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
> This means that using a dynamic loading technique does not exempt you from
> the GPL requirements. And LKM is, after all, a sort of dynamic loader.
It can be argued that a dynamically linked executable is in fact
exactly "complete object files", which can be "relink[ed] with the
library, after making changes to the library and recompiling it."
Which brings me to the question of whether it is possible to create a
statically linked executable from a dynamically linked one. I would
think so, but possibly not with current utilities. A quick try on
Linux on a pc didn't give any satisfactory results. And if this is
really impossible, you can distribute a binary pre-linked (ld -r),
and have the installation procedure link the final executable (static
or dynamic, per the user's choice).
And personally, I don't find the concept of the GPL that bad. Most of
my recent AmigaOS software is GPLed, just because it is (supposed to
be) a discouraging restriction for people who want to make money off my
personal efforts. And if I like, I can always re-release my software
with less severe restrictions. The other way around is impossible: a
package with no distribution limitations will always remain
distributable without limitations, so re-releasing it more strictly
will only have the effect that people stick to using the older one.
___ Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert D787B44DFC896063 4CBB95A5BD1DAA96
\X/ There are no lemurs in this post email@example.com