7 ms·
As far as I know, the effect of linking to GPL code hasn't actually been tested in court. The license is intended to impose obligations in the case of linking,
by Zak 11mo ago
As far as I know, the effect of linking to GPL code hasn't actually been tested in court.
The license is intended to impose obligations in the case of linking, but dynamic linking does not make a copy of the library at build time; it just generates enough metadata for the program to call the library. One might reasonably argue that no derivative work is created by dynamic linking, or that it is only created when the end user runs it.
EULAs are enforceable because the program is copied into RAM at runtime (a bad precedent, I think), but the GPL is not a EULA and only imposes requirements on distributors, not end users.
- mistrial9 11mo ago> he effect of linking to GPL code hasn't actually been tested in court. the intent of the GPL family of LICENSE is clear. There certainly will be efforts to diminish its reach by motivated parties. Tests in US courts are certainly a function of the depth of the pockets of litigants, no?
- Zak 11mo agoI'm not even trying to address realities like the potential unfairness of the courts here. I'm saying it would be very reasonable to conclude that linking isn't copying and a copyright license isn't required to do it.