Title: RE: Linking restrictions and shared libraries
Has the GPL every taken anyone to court?
Carter
> -Original Message-
> From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 2:47 PM
> To: Dr. David Gilbert; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Linking r
On Tuesday March 13 2001 03:51 am, Carter Bullard wrote:
> Has the GPL every taken anyone to court?
No. However, several parties have been "threatened" with legal action in the
past.
If you were to link a non-GPL application to a GPL libraries owned by the
FSF, you would first be requested to
On Tuesday March 13 2001 12:35 am, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
> Whether the library is intended to be shared should be readily resolved if
> its distributed under the GNU GPL or LGPL, so there is no issue there, and
> section 117(a)(1) should apply.
This would seem to presuppose that the GPL
On Monday March 12 2001 12:18 pm, Dr. David Gilbert wrote:
> What I am unclear of is shared libraries; is there something actually
> copied into the result as part of the linking stage? If I was to rewrite
> a header for a GPL library so that I didn't make use of the GPLd header
> could I then s
Dave,
I am saying the section 117(a)(1) allows dynamic linking when such linking
is done as an
essential step in the utilization of the computer program. I am also saying
that I do not read the GPL to restrict this privilege since it would narrow
the access to works by users, a result which would
You raise a very good question. First, your reference to my Mai v. Peak is
apropos, but section 117 of the Copyright Act is captioned "Limitations on
exclusive rights: Computer programs." Hence, even assuming there is reason
to believe in the continued vitality of the Mai v. Peak holding, section
on Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 10:56:38AM -0500, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
>
>
> Section 117
> Section 117(a) of the Copyright Act, seems applicable. It limits the right
<...>
> (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of
> Copy.-Notwithstanding the provisions of
On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
>
>
> Section 117
> Section 117(a) of the Copyright Act, seems applicable. It limits the right
> of the copyright holder with regard to computer programs, and is relevant to
> the dynamic linking of shared libraries. Given the general purpose of
Section 117
Section 117(a) of the Copyright Act, seems applicable. It limits the right
of the copyright holder with regard to computer programs, and is relevant to
the dynamic linking of shared libraries. Given the general purpose of the
GNU GPL, we can make two assumptions about its provisions:
> From: Dr. David Gilbert [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> What I am unclear of is shared libraries; is there something actually
> copied into the result as part of the linking stage? If I was to rewrite
> a header for a GPL library so that I didn't make use of the GPLd header
> could I then shared
Dr. David Gilbert scripsit:
> What I am unclear of is shared libraries; is there something actually
> copied into the result as part of the linking stage? If I was to rewrite
> a header for a GPL library so that I didn't make use of the GPLd header
> could I then shared link it into a commercial
Hi,
I am after understanding the linking restrictions of open source
licenses; in particular the GPL (but other discussion is welcome).
I can obviously understand that a static link copies parts of the open
source library into the result and thus that result must conform with the
license of the
On Sat, Mar 10 2001, at 23:44:02 +, Dave Gilbert wrote:
> Is there an archive of this list?
> (I'd rather grovel through an archive first than launch into questions
> about GPL and shared libraries which have probably been discussed to death
> already).
Hi Dave,
if you checked the archive f
13 matches
Mail list logo
