Copyleft/guide Changeset - 0adba8392352

Changeset - 0adba8392352

Parent rev.

Child rev.

[Not reviewed]

0 1 0

Bradley Kuhn (bkuhn) - 9 years ago 2014-12-23 18:22:05
bkuhn@ebb.org

FIXME re: "dynamic linking delayed" to runtime.

The existing text of the Guide hints at this point but doesn't discuss
it directly. This FIXME is merely a reminder note to investigate this
issue in further detail and perhaps add text here on the question.

1 file changed with 19 insertions and 0 deletions:

gpl-lgpl.tex

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)

gpl-lgpl.tex

➞

Show inline comments

@@ ... @@
 observed on the combination as a whole.  It matters not if that combination
 is made with a linker before distribution of the executable, is made by the
 operating system in order to share libraries for execution efficiency at
 runtime, or results from runtime references in the language at runtime (as in
 Java programs).
 % FIXME-SOON:
 %   A commonly asked question is whether or not separated distribution (i.e.,
 %   dynamic loading of a module that is expected to be present on the
 %   downstream sytem) triggers the copyleft requirement.  The text above
 %   hints at that issue, with reference to Java runtime.  However, here would
 %   likely be the natural place to discuss that issue in more depth.  I have
 %   never actually studied this specific question in a GPLv2 vs. GPLv3
 %   analysis, and as such I'd want to do that first.  Furthermore, the FSF
 %   has not publicly opined on this question to my knowledge, so I'd want to
 %   see possible update to
 %   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLStaticVsDynamic to mention
 %   this issue before opining about it in the Guide.
 %   I'm not aware, BTW, of any dissenting opinions or disagreements among
 %   copyleft advocates on this point.  I think it's just a question that is
 %   rarely opined on but often asked, so it's fitting for this Guide to cover
 %   it, and for addition on this point in the FAQ.
 \medskip
 \label{GPLv2s2-at-no-charge}
 The next phrase of note in GPLv2~\S2(b) is ``licensed \ldots at no charge.''
 This phrase  confuses many.  The sloppy reader points out this as ``a
 contradiction in GPL'' because (in their confused view) that clause of GPLv2~\S2 says that re-distributors cannot

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)