The GPL is a Copyright license and not an end user license; it relies solely on copyright law.
Interfaces and data structures aren't covered by copyright because they are classed as facts. Ref Abstraction Filteration Comparison.
When you dynamically link the only thing you copy is the interfaces and data structures.
So, if I distribute a dynamically linked application without the required libraries the application that I am distributing contains no copyrightable data from the GPL library.
In that case how can a copyright license cover something which hasn't violated copyright?
We should probably believe the FSF since it's their license.
That's the one reason you shouldn't belive the FSF, they have an agenda and there not going to say you can do something they don't like even if you can.
Right so you knock wikipedia then all of a sudden some guys post on a forum becomes gospel?
No, I'm saying that people that look at the problem all seem to find a loop hole in the GPL when it comes to dynamic linking, people who don't look at the problem and belive the fsf stick the the fsf line.
The reason I mention "Abstraction Filtration Comparison" is because it's the test used for a derived work, and the GPL only talks about derived works because that's all you can cover using copyright law. (The only regerence to linking is after the end of the terms of the GPL)
In this case if they statically linked against a GPL app or library then there's a problem, and if they distributed a closed source library or application with a GPL library then there's a problem. If they dynamically linked then the GPL will probably fall down.
three points 1: it's a wikipedia artical. 2: the words we believe 3: It's Free Software Foundation retoric.
and belive is the correct word, the Law (or I know) uses Abstraction Filteration Comparison.
You should have checked out the second link, or the third link 'The GPL simply prevents you from _distributing_ the GPLed code'
or maybe a few links afterwards that state things like
'For example, technologies like dynamic linking and distributed object computing are often not interpreted as creating derived works. In contrast to these more traditional views, the GPL and its originators, the Free Software Foundation (FSF), propose viewpoints that they open admit push interpretation of copyright law to extremes.'
Which I take to mean, this is what we want the GPL to mean not what it actually means.
The GPL prevents static linking because you are copying the library into you application/library and the GPL is a copyright license and prevents this because of the clauses about derived works.
However when you dynamically link you do not take a copy of the code and since the GPL is a copyright license there's nothing it can do to stop you unless you distribute both the GPL library and your work together.
I won't bother asking RMS or the FSF I'll just look at the GPL myself and take a broad opinion of the interpretation of the GPL and not rely on those who have afterthoughts about what the GPL should be but isn't.
As for Google try searching for gpl prevents dynamic linking yourself. You could also try googling for abstraction filtration comparison to find out what exactly is a derived work.
It appears that you have failed to do the simple research.
If they ship the dll with the application then it may be a GPL violation if it falls out of the mere aggregation clause. When you write a GPL application against the windows API you don't usually ship the application with the windows API, and there has been a case of someone shipping a distro with the binary ATI + NVidia drivers being pulled up by the FSF for violation of the GPL.
Personally I don't see how the GPL can be violated here and yet we still have PC's shipping with GPL software on them.
If 'enough' random searches are done then I expect they would be effective. It only takes one person to get through and I doubt the searches are going to put 'terrorists' off. So random searches are not effective.
For example, if I profile for young Muslim men with turbans the attacker can simply pick disaffected white middle-class women. Sure, such people are hard to come by but it is fool-hardy to suggest that they do not exist.
So exactly how many attacks / attempted attacks have been by young Muslim men/women and how many have been by disaffected white middle-class women? Try 100% and none, you'd have thought the terrorists would have recruited disaffected white middle-class women by now if they could have done.
Disclamer, I'm not racest in any way and partly support the goals of the terrorists (though not the targetiting of civilians), I still think profiling is the way to go to stop civilian deaths.
Luna 1 was intended to crash into the Moon but failed. The Soviet scientists then renamed their little probe "Mechta", meaning "The Dream". The dream being the dream of exporting the rest of space.
You forgot to mention that when DRM'ed material falls out of copyright there's no way of putting it into the public domain wiping our childrens history books clean.
Except they ban 'child' porn even if it has adults in it that look young enough to be children, or the 'children' are dolls or even cartoons. For something to be clasified as child porn it just has to look like there are children involved.
Not only that but he got off at the first trial because the email system was designed to recieve email so he didn't break into the system or misuse it.
There was an appeal against this descision to which he plead guilty. (Quite why he did so I can't even begin to guess)
Use less energy, need less energy. Simple really. And you save money and the enviroment at the same time.
That's fine until. A: You increase the population beyone it's current level. B: Even given A resources are going to start to run out so it's going to end up costing you a hell of a lot more money in the future.
Fortunatly 'native' europeans seem to know this as were only having and average of 1.6 children for every two people. Unfortuntly many countries around the world have banned contraception mainly because of religions nuts managing the convince the masses.
Slashdot Mirror
You could always vote for this bug
Think about it for a minute.
The GPL is a Copyright license and not an end user license; it relies solely on copyright law.
Interfaces and data structures aren't covered by copyright because they are classed as facts. Ref Abstraction Filteration Comparison.
When you dynamically link the only thing you copy is the interfaces and data structures.
So, if I distribute a dynamically linked application without the required libraries the application that I am distributing contains no copyrightable data from the GPL library.
In that case how can a copyright license cover something which hasn't violated copyright?
We should probably believe the FSF since it's their license.
That's the one reason you shouldn't belive the FSF, they have an agenda and there not going to say you can do something they don't like even if you can.
Right so you knock wikipedia then all of a sudden some guys post on a forum becomes gospel?
No, I'm saying that people that look at the problem all seem to find a loop hole in the GPL when it comes to dynamic linking, people who don't look at the problem and belive the fsf stick the the fsf line.
The reason I mention "Abstraction Filtration Comparison" is because it's the test used for a derived work, and the GPL only talks about derived works because that's all you can cover using copyright law. (The only regerence to linking is after the end of the terms of the GPL)
In this case if they statically linked against a GPL app or library then there's a problem, and if they distributed a closed source library or application with a GPL library then there's a problem. If they dynamically linked then the GPL will probably fall down.
three points
1: it's a wikipedia artical.
2: the words we believe
3: It's Free Software Foundation retoric.
and belive is the correct word, the Law (or I know) uses Abstraction Filteration Comparison.
You should have checked out the second link, or the third link 'The GPL simply prevents you from _distributing_ the GPLed code'
or maybe a few links afterwards that state things like
'For example, technologies like dynamic linking and distributed object computing are often not interpreted as creating derived works. In contrast to these more traditional views, the GPL and its originators, the Free Software Foundation (FSF), propose viewpoints that they open admit push interpretation of copyright law to extremes.'
Which I take to mean, this is what we want the GPL to mean not what it actually means.
The GPL prevents static linking because you are copying the library into you application/library and the GPL is a copyright license and prevents this because of the clauses about derived works.
However when you dynamically link you do not take a copy of the code and since the GPL is a copyright license there's nothing it can do to stop you unless you distribute both the GPL library and your work together.
I won't bother asking RMS or the FSF I'll just look at the GPL myself and take a broad opinion of the interpretation of the GPL and not rely on those who have afterthoughts about what the GPL should be but isn't.
As for Google try searching for gpl prevents dynamic linking yourself.
You could also try googling for abstraction filtration comparison to find out what exactly is a derived work.
It appears that you have failed to do the simple research.
That comes after the 'end of terms and conditions' bit.
try using a proxy
Which line of the GPL would that be? The GPL only talks about derived works.
If they ship the dll with the application then it may be a GPL violation if it falls out of the mere aggregation clause. When you write a GPL application against the windows API you don't usually ship the application with the windows API, and there has been a case of someone shipping a distro with the binary ATI + NVidia drivers being pulled up by the FSF for violation of the GPL.
Personally I don't see how the GPL can be violated here and yet we still have PC's shipping with GPL software on them.
If 'enough' random searches are done then I expect they would be effective.
It only takes one person to get through and I doubt the searches are going to put 'terrorists' off. So random searches are not effective.
For example, if I profile for young Muslim men with turbans the attacker can simply pick disaffected white middle-class women. Sure, such people are hard to come by but it is fool-hardy to suggest that they do not exist.
So exactly how many attacks / attempted attacks have been by young Muslim men/women and how many have been by disaffected white middle-class women? Try 100% and none, you'd have thought the terrorists would have recruited disaffected white middle-class women by now if they could have done.
Disclamer, I'm not racest in any way and partly support the goals of the terrorists (though not the targetiting of civilians), I still think profiling is the way to go to stop civilian deaths.
I've upgraded the experement to use magnets.
Luna 1 was intended to crash into the Moon but failed. The Soviet scientists then renamed their little probe "Mechta", meaning "The Dream". The dream being the dream of exporting the rest of space.
Ok it was the case for 6 years (and the last time I checked) but it looks like the supreme court has overturned the law.
It's much easier if you use an elastic band to simulate gravity.
You forgot to mention that when DRM'ed material falls out of copyright there's no way of putting it into the public domain wiping our childrens history books clean.
The file will probably be signed and encrypted and the system will fail to start without it.
What if someone didn't check their email?
Easy make not checking your email a sackable offence.
Except they ban 'child' porn even if it has adults in it that look young enough to be children, or the 'children' are dolls or even cartoons. For something to be clasified as child porn it just has to look like there are children involved.
Shouldn't your question be are people inherently communist?
Not only that but he got off at the first trial because the email system was designed to recieve email so he didn't break into the system or misuse it.
There was an appeal against this descision to which he plead guilty. (Quite why he did so I can't even begin to guess)
Use less energy, need less energy. Simple really. And you save money and the enviroment at the same time.
That's fine until.
A: You increase the population beyone it's current level.
B: Even given A resources are going to start to run out so it's going to end up costing you a hell of a lot more money in the future.
Fortunatly 'native' europeans seem to know this as were only having and average of 1.6 children for every two people. Unfortuntly many countries around the world have banned contraception mainly because of religions nuts managing the convince the masses.
that's press as in presidency?
If the software is GPL and you own the copyright to it there's no reason why you can't have a non GPL version with more features that costs money.
When demand outstrips the supply of a limited resource they only way out is to cut the demand.
You seem to forget were talking about the Government here.