Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Not the point. | 359 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Not the point.

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 11:03 AM EDT

Direct linking, without shared libraries, requires the library to be physically included with the application

By direct linking, do you mean static and exclude dynamic linking? In the latter case, no copy is made.

I haven't gone back to the FSF itself to confirm, but according to Wikipedia the FSF, "asserts that an executable which uses a dynamically linked library is indeed a derivative work"

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Thats the difference between GPL and LGPL - Authored by: jesse on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 07:23 AM EDT

think of kernel modules

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 03:21 PM EDT

What about binary only drivers getting loaded as kernel modules? A clear case
of separate code, no libraries are sucked in, yet the claim is made that it is a
derivative work.

The LGPL is not involved in that.

--

Bondfire

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

think of kernel modules - Authored by: DieterWasDriving on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 04:55 PM EDT

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )