🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ko6d26INNcjn@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:

> Assuming for the moment that this is correct, then the obvious slimy
> way around this is to make use of dynamic loading of programs.
> Compile the gnu stuff into a shared library, and write some
> include files of the form:

...

> I'd love to see an official
> opinion on this, but I suspect that it is in the FSF's interests to
> let people wonder if this trick is permitted by the license or not.

I seriously doubt that the FSF intended to be vague - for example
according to somebody at Cygnus who (apparently) knew about the
development of the LGPL, they wanted to make sure that in the LGPL
didn't require you to do anything if you used shared libraries.  At
any rate, I'm sure that your trick is legal, and here's why:

Say I want to use some GNU routines.  I compile those into a (dynamic)
library, which I will call libfoo.  Libfoo is obviously a derivative
work, hence falls under the auspices of the GPL.  I then compile a
(dynamically-linked) program bar which calls routines in libfoo.  My
program bar does _not_, however, depend on source code in libfoo - it
merely depends on the interface too libfoo, an entirely different
matter.  (Like the difference between copyrighting source and
copyrighting look-and-feel.)  This falls under the rubric of the
sentence "Activities other than copying, distribution, and
modification are not covered by this License" in the GPL.  Of course,
when you distribute the program bar, you can also distribute libfoo;
this is mere agreggation of your work with a derivative work, and
similarly doesn't cause your program to fall under the rubric of the
GPL.

(Of course, if you want an official opinion, send mail to
gnu@prep.ai.mit.edu.  And, looking at the GPL a bit more, it does in
fact claim that "interface definition files" come under the rubric of
source code, so maybe you'd have to do the above without actually
using include files for libfoo.  Dunno.)

david carlton
carlton@husc.harvard.edu

       It's NO USE..  I've gone to ``CLUB MED''!!