Re: ndiswrapper and GPL-only symbols redux

[Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org>]

On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 02:25 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> > > It is interesting that someone posting with an @gnu.org address claims
> > > that dynamic linking of not GPLv2 compatible code into GPLv2 code was
> > > not a copyright violation.
> > 
> > No, I'm representing myself only.  I don't think you represent all
> > kernel developers when posting from the kernel.org address.
> 
> I'm not using my @kernel.org address except for kernel issues and I'm 
> not using a company address in linux-kernel discussions.
> 
> Mailing lists of a project or a company are something completely 
> different from using a project or company address outside of the 
> project.

OK, I'll think about it.

> > I, for one, would welcome an informed position of the FSF.  It may have
> > interesting implications for Wine, ReactOS, mplayer, qemu, Java and many
> > other programs loading non-free compiled code at the run time.
> 
> Wine is licenced under the terms of the LGPL.
> 
> ReactOS is licenced under the terms of the GPL with a licence 
> exception for runtime linking of non-free modules.
> 
> QEMU is licenced under the terms of the GPL with a licence exception for 
> runtime linking with libqemu.a.
> 
> GNU classpath (and libgcj) are licenced under the terms of the GPL with 
> a licence exception for runtime linking with it.
> 
> As you can see, all of the above explicitely address this issue.
> 
> The only program from your list that has a fishy licencing is mplayer.

Thanks for the detailed analysis!

Anyway, as far as I know, copyright covers copying of works, and dynamic
linking never creates anything suitable for copying.  The "derived work"
stays in memory, just like it does when a proprietary program runs on
top of the Linux kernel.  Memory dumps might be illegal to distribute
though.

I'm not a lawyer and the above is not a legal advice.  I don't represent
Free Software Foundation.

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin