On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:02:36 +0100, Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:39:11 +0100, Martin Dickopp >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> You can read about the position of the FSF here: >>> >>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation >>> >>> In particular, if the separate GPL'ed executable has no purpose on its >>> own, but is created solely to circumvent the license of the library, >>> then it is *not* okay. >> >> The quoted link seems to suggest that using pipes as IPC and execing a >> GPLed binary is a satisfactory work around. > > Not at all: > >| By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are >| communication mechanisms *normally* used between two separate >| programs. > > (Emphasis mine.) > > That suggests to me that the /mechanism/ of communication provides > some hints... > >| But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, >| exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be >| a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger >| program. > > ...but that the /semantics/ of communication is really decisive.
That might be a fair interpretation except that dynamic linking is pretty much rules out even without taking semantics into account. IMO that plus the willingness to accept pipes and command-line arguments as normally ok adds up to an unjustified reliance on the mechanism of communication. Isaac _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
