Sun open-source license could mean Solaris-Linux barrier

TalkBack 48 of 95:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Toss this to the wind...

You'll probably never have the opportunity to read this response Cobra, but neither will I have the opportunity to read a response to this one, should you write one. Let's cover your biggest misstatement though:

"In other words, I lose the advantages of static linking?" "Not all libraries are availabe in dynamic link form, and not all programmers know how to do dynamic linking."

If the library you are linking to is GPL, then by license, that library has available source code. Creating a runtime .so is as simple as changing the target specification in the Makefile.am. One line change, recompile, output is now a .so. Link at runtime.

Oh, but I can hear your protest "But the end user won't have my .so or the changed Makefile." So, since this is Free Software; you have been given a license to redistribute. So, do so! Redistribute the source with the updated Makefile.am. Since you're dynamic linking to that specific version. You also needn't worry about synchronizing with the main tree for that library and since their's is a static link library; there is no danger of a library clash.

The FSF does indeed have a stricter interpretation of the GPL. That's their purpose: to be purists. Most authors are not purists though. Most have a goodly number of practical exceptions.

That said, on the technical side, if you read the methodology by which dynamic linkage occurs for your OS; you may discover that only in certain OS do the dynamic modules share address space for code. More often they share a stack and little more. So, depending on your OS; you may be completely safe even with the FSF interpretation.

Of course, let's not forget something important we should not ignore, in quoting the FSF interpretation, and that is quite simply that the FSF can only say what the GPL means for the FSF copyrighted work. If the library you intend to use is not copyright-held by the FSF; you'll have to ask the copyright holder of =that= library for his interpretation of the GPL. Few, if any, authors are as strict in their interpretation as the FSF as I noted previously. Most authors are more practical than political.

My original statement stands; there are exceptions and they vary author to author and case to case. Since you've not explained precisely what library is causing your angst; I can't give you any more detail than I have. I'll try to remember to ask, off-topic, some other time. Good luck!

Posted by: John Le'Brecage   Posted on: 12/05/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• The True Costs of Virtual Server Solutions VMware In an economic environment that is repeatedly heralding the message "do ... Download Now
• Email Security and Archiving - Clearer in the Cloud Google The time is NOW for businesses and organizations of all sizes to implement ... Download Now
• Three Steps You Need to Know to Stop Data Loss Varonis Sensitive data exposed to misuse or loss... it is the stuff of nightmares ... Download Now