Re: question about gpl-commercial dual licencing On 4/29/07, Josh Triplett  wrote:
> > If you created the bindings using ctypes or similar, where there's no
> > actual linking taking place, I think it's all OK.
>
> The specific technical mechanism used to link to libfoo doesn't matter.  For
> the purposes of the GPL, it matters whether pyfoo forms a derivative work of
> libfoo.  Whether that holds true for pyfoo or not depends on the details of
> pyfoo and libfoo.  In the absence of strong technical evidence to the
> contrary, or specific precedent, I suggest you assume that pyfoo does derive
> from libfoo (regardless of the interface pyfoo uses to invoke libfoo).

"it matters whether pyfoo forms a derivative work of libfoo"

That's exactly why it does matter how it links. According to the FSF
linking does create a derivative work, although I wouldn't think dl()
would be considered as a derivative.

-- 
Andrew Donnellan
ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)    ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure)
http://andrewdonnellan.com         http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com
ajdlinux@jabber.org.au             hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58
            http://linux.org.au    http://debian.org
        Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
        Spammers only === ajdspambucket@exemail.com.au ===


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

