Recommendation for a CL data structures library
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: [2nd CfP] 7th European Lisp Workshop at ECOOP'10, June 21/22
Next: §§§ 2010 Cheap wholesale ED Hardy Suit, Baby Suit, Lacoste Suit ect at www.rijing-trade.com <Paypal Payment>
From: Hyman Rosen on 25 Mar 2010 12:23 On 3/25/2010 11:30 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > It would appear that you are not familiar with the realities of dynamic > linking on UNIX-like operating systems. Dynamically linked libraries > (we are not talking about Windows DLLs here) are carefully versioned and > tend to become incompatible with their predecessors pretty regularly. > That's why you need to compile a program using dynamic libraries with > the corresponding header versions for the API versioning. That's irrelevant. If you do not copy and distribute the library as part of the program, then the license of the library cannot affect the right to copy and distribute the program. Copyright law does not care that a program needs a certain version of a library to work correctly, because copyright law does not care whether or not a program works at all. It's only copying and distribution that count. > It is a quite special case to explicitly load a shared executable (and > call its entry points) for which not particular headers were used in the > preparation of the binary. I do not even know the library/system call > for that. That the text of a program contains indications that the program will use certain libraries in certain ways is generally irrelevant to the copyright status of the program. There is generally only one way to express within the text of a program that the program will use elements of a library, and therefore that expression is not copyrightable because it lacks originality as defined by copyright law - see the Lexmark printer cartridge case <http://www.mwe.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/publications.nldetail/object_id/e9bc6a89-03dc-4e37-9dba-d3d324d6a94c.cfm>. To put it more simply, that the program contains "#include "joe-lib.h"' and 'JOEbits jb;' and 'JOEjob(jb, "hello");' does not generally cause the text of the program to fall under the copyright of the JOE library, nor does it cause the compiled binary which dynamically links to the JOE library to fall under the copyright of the JOE library.
From: Hyman Rosen on 25 Mar 2010 12:26 On 3/25/2010 11:30 AM, Raffael Cavallaro wrote: > The release of the Library GPL is an implicit recognition of the fact > that the GPL is a poor fit for libraries. No. The LGPL is an attempt to get people to use free libraries when they might easily use non-free ones instead. It trades away some of the users' freedom where the alternative might be that the users get no freedom at all.
From: Hyman Rosen on 25 Mar 2010 12:30 On 3/25/2010 11:50 AM, Peter Keller wrote: > It is that "permit linking proprietary applications" phrase which is the rub. > It doesn't mention static or dynamic, so one must assume both. No. It does not matter what the GPL or the LGPL says unless there is a reason that the license should apply. When a program is linked dynamically against a library and is copied and distributed without that library, then the copyright license of the library is irrelevant because the library is not being copied and distributed. That is, when copying and distributing a program, the first thing to determine is which licenses apply. Only after that do you need to worry about what those licenses say.
From: Alexander Terekhov on 25 Mar 2010 12:33 Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/25/2010 11:30 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > > It would appear that you are not familiar with the realities of dynamic > > linking on UNIX-like operating systems. Dynamically linked libraries > > (we are not talking about Windows DLLs here) are carefully versioned and > > tend to become incompatible with their predecessors pretty regularly. > > That's why you need to compile a program using dynamic libraries with > > the corresponding header versions for the API versioning. > > That's irrelevant. If you do not copy and distribute the library as > part of the program, then the license of the library cannot affect > the right to copy and distribute the program. Copyright law does not > care that a program needs a certain version of a library to work > correctly, because copyright law does not care whether or not a > program works at all. It's only copying and distribution that count. > > > It is a quite special case to explicitly load a shared executable (and > > call its entry points) for which not particular headers were used in the > > preparation of the binary. I do not even know the library/system call > > for that. > > That the text of a program contains indications that the program > will use certain libraries in certain ways is generally irrelevant > to the copyright status of the program. There is generally only one > way to express within the text of a program that the program will > use elements of a library, and therefore that expression is not > copyrightable because it lacks originality as defined by copyright > law - see the Lexmark printer cartridge case > <http://www.mwe.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/publications.nldetail/object_id/e9bc6a89-03dc-4e37-9dba-d3d324d6a94c.cfm>. > > To put it more simply, that the program contains "#include "joe-lib.h"' > and 'JOEbits jb;' and 'JOEjob(jb, "hello");' does not generally cause > the text of the program to fall under the copyright of the JOE library, > nor does it cause the compiled binary which dynamically links to the > JOE library to fall under the copyright of the JOE library. Wow. Hyman, I agree with you 100% with the caveat that static linking doesn't change anything. It's mere aggregation, stupid. regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress." Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.)
From: Hyman Rosen on 25 Mar 2010 12:36
On 3/25/2010 12:00 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > An anthology is "mere aggregation" of literary works. > ... > Think of shipping a pile of e-books in own file. That's what static > linking is as far as copyright is concerned because relocation and > symbol resolution are irrelevant details regarding copyright. No, both of these statements are wrong. See 17 USC 101 <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101> A �collective work� is a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. A �compilation� is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term �compilation� includes collective works. |