On Jan 29, 2008, at 10:05 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: >> On Jan 29, 2008, at 3:08 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: >>> >>> but i really don't know >>> >>> mfga.sd >>> IOhannes >> Dynamically linked libraries also trigger the GPL. For example, most > > yeah; i wanted to stress that shipping a patch with abstraction > dependencies could even be considered as static linking - because > people seem to think that static linking enforces the GPL more than > dynamic linking. (which does say nothing about whether this is true) > >> Linux kernel modules are dynamically linked into the kernel these >> days, and they definitely required to be GPL. > > but there _are_ non-GPL'ed kernel-modules. > even though they are disliked.
Yes, and they are also technically in violation of the GPL, AFAIK. I imagine that Linus and the FSF has not enforced it because it could be counterproductive. .hc ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- Terrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It's a tactic. It's about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and expect we're going to win that war. We're not going to win the war on terrorism. - retired U.S. Army general, William Odom _______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list