I believe everything you've said here is true, but in addition (not knowing
how UnixNPI actually works I'm not positive 'bout this), it sounds to me
like he's not "linking" to it in the compile-and-link sense. Correct me if
I'm wrong, but we're talking about the invocation of a command-line app,
right? I've never heard anyone suggest that such loose "linking" is a
violation of the GPL. It (a) is not a derivative work and (b) (as you said)
doesn't require the GPLed code to compile and/or link, and can run without
it
/Sam
Simon Roberts wrote:
> On Friday, October 11, 2002, at 06:15 am, Norman Palardy wrote:
>
> >
> > If he dynamically links to it this should be fine and not
> require his
> > product to be GPL'd
>
> I don't think that it has ever been satisfactorily determined
> once and
> for all whether dynamic linking is sufficient to get around the GPL.
> Some people believe that there should really be no fundamental
> difference between static linking and dynamic linking with respect to
> the GPL.
>
> Far more important IMHO is whether this app is a derivative work of
> unixnpi and whether it can work without it, using an
> alternative means
> of installation. I would guess that it isn't and can!
>
> On the subject of licenses, without wishing to start a
> "religious war",
> GPL is not all bad and I am personally very grateful that
> there is some
> excellent GPL'd Newton software out there. A BSD like license is also
> just fine.
>
> Simon
-- Read the List FAQ/Etiquette: http://www.newtontalk.net/faq.html Read the Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/ This is the NewtonTalk mailing list - http://www.newtontalk.net/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Oct 31 2002 - 12:02:32 EST