4 ms·
> I think this whole part applies as much to the text of the GPL itself as to the common Linux explanation. The GPL draws a distinction between dynamic linking,
by temac 5y ago
> I think this whole part applies as much to the text of the GPL itself as to the common Linux explanation. The GPL draws a distinction between dynamic linking, static linking, and use over a network or through a CLI style interface to decide if a work is a derived work of the GPL program.
I just rechecked and it does not seem the GPLv2 does such things. I've not rechecked for v3, but from memory it does not do that either.
I completely agree with you that clear intent is important though.
- mustache_kimono 5y agoI think she/he's trying to say -- the FSF draws such distinctions, but I think you're right the GPLv2 doesn't, and these are all just post-hoc rationalizations.
- tsimionescu 5y agoI explained more in another comment, but you're right, I had some confusion. The GPL itself makes no such claims, but the FSF does; also, the LGPL directly implies that programs that dynamically link an LGPL library are derived works of that library, but makes an exemption from the normal GPL requirements for such programs. Further, the FSF draws a distinction between linking (either statically or dynamically, which they believe makes your program a derivative work) and calling through a CLI or over a network (which they believe does not make your program a derivative work, except if the data structures exchanged through the CLI/network are complex enough).