|
From: | David Bateman |
Subject: | Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing |
Date: | Wed, 08 Apr 2009 19:30:07 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20081018) |
Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
This is not a case of dynamic linking as in the case given in the wikipedia article. The case is of a API to a plugin interface that is not GPLed (ie the MEX interface). John specifically asked the FSF legal people about exactly this issue and they considered that it was ok to distribute binary mex files as long as they are not distributed in a manner that makes them and Octave a single product. I'll let John confirm the exact text as it was John that was the interface with the FSF on this question..Wikipedia says the dispute whether dynamic linking constitutes a derivative work is not legally clear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL#The_GPL_in_court) but it seems FSF's opinion is clear - it does, and a GPL library needs to provide a linking exception to allow the dynamic linking. Of course, disclaiming that the linking constitutes a derivative work would be probably equivalent, but I think it must be stated by the license, not a FAQ list, and must be thus agreed upon by copyright holders. Given that the there is neither a linking exception nor a disclaimer statement in any of Octave's sources, my opinion is that compiled mex files linked against Octave libraries are covered by GPL, at least potentially (if FSF is right).
D. -- David Bateman address@hidden 35 rue Gambetta +33 1 46 04 02 18 (Home) 92100 Boulogne-Billancourt FRANCE +33 6 72 01 06 33 (Mob)
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |