Patrik Stridvall wrote:
Which is my response to Rogers comment above - sure the GPL prohibits linking with a nonfree component.
Yes, but what is linking?
Don't you understand it is the vagueness of linking that is the problem.
I don't think it's vague. We can define it quite well. If bytes derived from object A end up in the same file as bytes from object B, they are statically linked. If they are in separate files, but one calls the other via a function call in the same process, they are dynamically linked. If they are in separate files, and one calls the other via a function call that crosses process boundaries (i.e. uses a remote procedure call protocol), there is no linking, at least not by current standards (and I bet this will not change).
Header files for LGPL'd works are interesting; if they contain macros or inline functions, those need to be provided under a more liberal license, otherwise they would fit the definition of static linking.
Patrick just doesn't like the goals of the LGPL, I think.
- Dan