----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony" <wikimail(a)inbox.org>
> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
From: "Anthony"
<wikimail(a)inbox.org>
> >
> >> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Aryeh Gregor
> >> <Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Linking has no special status in the GPL -- it's just a question
> >> > of
> >> > what legally constitutes a derivative work. If a C program that
> >> > dynamically links to a library is legally a derivative work of
> >> > that
> >> > library,
> >>
> >> It isn't. A C program which *contains* a library is legally a
> >> derivative work of that library.
> >
> > Static linking fits that description. Dynamic linking -- through the
> > FSF would really like it to -- does not.
>
> I'm not sure if that's true or not. There's certainly an argument to
> be made that dynamic linking creates a derivative work *at the time it
> is linked*. Also, there's an even stronger argument that using the
> GPL header files to compile the unlinked program creates a derivative
> work. (If you want to reverse engineer the header files then you can
> get around that problem, but that's a lot of extra work, and in most
> cases, such as this one, you might as well convert the library into a
> standalone program that can be used via a pipe.)
Feist v Rural; header files are *factual data*; no creativity there.
The interoperability exception is to the DMCA, I think, not to section
107.
None of our opinions matter until there's caselaw, of course, and there
isn't. But I think the arguments against headers being copyrightable --
and thereby dynamic linking not being a violation of the GPLv2 -- are
pretty strong, myself.
Cheers,
-- jr 'IANAL' a