[argyllcms] Re: Autotools version of 1.0.0-patched
- From: Martin Ling <martin-argyll@xxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:34:40 +0100
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:08:00AM +1000, Graeme Gill wrote:
>
> I agree, it seems to me to an urban legend. It doesn't matter if
> code is static, dynamically linked or merely invoked by an exec -
> if the combined entity (the compilation) depends for it's functionality
> on a piece of software, then it is a derived work of that software.
If I write a program that runs on Windows, it depends on Windows and
uses various system calls etc for functionality. That doesn't make it a
derived work, and Microsoft has no say over what I do with my program.
The technical differences between system calls and library calls are
surely irrelevant here, i.e. the same should apply to libraries.
There is a real difference between static and dynamic linking in terms
of copyright law, which is that when you ship a statically linked binary
you are including a copy of the library code. It's the making and
distribution of that copy which is the issue, over which the copyright
holder of the library has some say under copyright law. The technical
details of the linking mechanism have nothing to do with it except
insofar as they imply the copying.
When you ship a dynamically linked binary, people can use it with their
own copies of the libraries, and it's their problem to get hold of such
copies in a legal way.
When you ship source code, what others do about linking it (including
the distributions) is entirely up to them, and any legal implications
lie with them.
IANAL, though - this is just my understanding.
Martin
Other related posts:
