Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing

[David Bateman]

Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
> 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).
>   
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..

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)