3 ms·

You don't just dynamically link a library. You link it and then use its API, it's precisely the using of the API that creates the derivative work (if you accept

by mantap 6y ago

You don't just dynamically link a library. You link it and then use its API, it's precisely the using of the API that creates the derivative work (if you accept FSF's position). I don't see how e.g. calling dlopen() on its own but not using the API could create a derivative work any more than calling fopen() does.

belorn 6y ago
The original case for RMS when he created the position for dynamically linked libraries where when apple created an GCC version that had a Objective-C frontend. RMS initially did not think this would be covered by copyright but after talking with the lawyer Eben Moglen he got the following explanation: A judge would unlikely see it as an objective-C fronted as an independent work that is talking with GCC, but rather just a compiler. That compiler would be the work, and thus a derivative work since it combines the GCC code and the objective-C fronted. Nothing in there is about API's. There is also nothing about linking. It just about what a judge would perceive as being "the work". FSF however do seem to have a policy about enforcing the license at the technical distinction of linking, but that is just a policy decision based on where they think a judge would likely side with them. Apple were free to go to court arguing that it is not a compiler but rather different independent works simply communicating with each other, but they chose not to do so.
- compsciphd 6y ago
  hmm. I had a discussion about dynamic linking with Eben years ago, and my memory (hazy as it might be) what that he implied that it was coming from the FSF, not from him (at least the libreadline argument). But as I said, this was a long time ago. (probably 15 years at least). Apple could have decided it wasn't worth the fight, i.e. the benefits of thei front end being GPLd or not being GPLd in the end made no difference, so no reason to fight it.
  - belorn 6y ago
    I heard that version about Apple and the Objective-C frontend case from Stallman during a talk at Gothenburg if I remember right. He consulted eben moglen and based on that change his opinion. It is possible that Eben consider the decision to still be Richards, which technically it was. When it come to apple I strongly suspect there are a few things companies like them will try avoid putting lawyers and money on. What is the definition for derivative work and what is the definition of fair use. If you do want to stake money on that you likely want aspects of the case being stacked in your favor, and basing the majority of a product on a GPL code base is not that. A single function call to libreadline would likely be more favorable, but a company like apple would just rewrite such trivial amount of code.
xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
No, this is incorrect. You can link to an alternative implementation with the same API without any licensing issues.

by mantap 6y ago

belorn 6y ago

The original case for RMS when he created the position for dynamically linked libraries where when apple created an GCC version that had a Objective-C frontend. RMS initially did not think this would be covered by copyright but after talking with the lawyer Eben Moglen he got the following explanation: A judge would unlikely see it as an objective-C fronted as an independent work that is talking with GCC, but rather just a compiler. That compiler would be the work, and thus a derivative work since it combines the GCC code and the objective-C fronted. Nothing in there is about API's. There is also nothing about linking. It just about what a judge would perceive as being "the work". FSF however do seem to have a policy about enforcing the license at the technical distinction of linking, but that is just a policy decision based on where they think a judge would likely side with them. Apple were free to go to court arguing that it is not a compiler but rather different independent works simply communicating with each other, but they chose not to do so.

compsciphd 6y ago
hmm. I had a discussion about dynamic linking with Eben years ago, and my memory (hazy as it might be) what that he implied that it was coming from the FSF, not from him (at least the libreadline argument). But as I said, this was a long time ago. (probably 15 years at least). Apple could have decided it wasn't worth the fight, i.e. the benefits of thei front end being GPLd or not being GPLd in the end made no difference, so no reason to fight it.
- belorn 6y ago
  I heard that version about Apple and the Objective-C frontend case from Stallman during a talk at Gothenburg if I remember right. He consulted eben moglen and based on that change his opinion. It is possible that Eben consider the decision to still be Richards, which technically it was. When it come to apple I strongly suspect there are a few things companies like them will try avoid putting lawyers and money on. What is the definition for derivative work and what is the definition of fair use. If you do want to stake money on that you likely want aspects of the case being stacked in your favor, and basing the majority of a product on a GPL code base is not that. A single function call to libreadline would likely be more favorable, but a company like apple would just rewrite such trivial amount of code.

xyzzy_plugh 6y ago

No, this is incorrect. You can link to an alternative implementation with the same API without any licensing issues.