From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 15:08:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 15:08:20 -0400 Received: from isimail.interactivesi.com ([207.8.4.3]:30986 "HELO dinero.interactivesi.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 15:08:09 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:08:02 -0500 From: Timur Tabi To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200106211904.PAA10433@mah21awu.cas.org> In-Reply-To: from "Timur Tabi" at Jun 21, 2001 01:46:48 PM Subject: Re: Controversy over dynamic linking -- how to end the panic X-Mailer: The Polarbar Mailer; version=1.19a; build=73 Message-ID: X-AntiVirus: scanned for viruses by AMaViS 0.2.1 (http://amavis.org/) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org ** Reply to message from Mike Harrold on Thu, 21 Jun 2001 15:04:21 -0400 (EDT) > Not to mention utterly unenforceable. Consider: > > 1) Oracle Corp. builds their database for Linux on a Linux system. > 2) Said system comes with standard header files, which happen in this case to > be GPL'd header files. > 3) Oracle Corp.'s database becomes GPL. > > There's not a court in the civilised world that would uphold the GPL in that > scenario. I do believe, however, that in these cases the header files in question are under the LGPL, which does specifically allow linking and #including in non-GPL and non-LGPL code. In my opinion, this whole thing would just go away (including some of Microsoft's anti-GPL rants), if the FSF officially declared that under the GPL, #including a GPL header file does NOT force your code to be also GPL. -- Timur Tabi - ttabi@interactivesi.com Interactive Silicon - http://www.interactivesi.com