commercial use

[Ethan Blanton]

Enrico Weigelt spake unto us the following wisdom:
> > Yes, really.  Envision an implementation of ld.so which calls
> > functions across a Unix socket by marshalling the function calls and
> > arguments as-is.  (There's obviously a lot of work involved here, and
> > as stated, it's practical only if the two halves of the call share an
> > address space.)  Clearly this is a direct usage of the Purple API, and
> > one cannot claim to be independent of libpurple simply because
> > libpurple is used via IPC.
> 
> If there happens no library/code linking, but everything talks via
> some IPC channel (network, local pipe, whatever), it's not an derived
> work anybore (assuming the header files for compiling the calling 
> part were completely written from scratch, just defining the same
> interface).

Then why is linking into the same address space derivative?  Your
claim makes no sense.  Address space is not covered in copyright law,
either.  What about a microkernel system?

I'm not going to debate this any farther, for several reasons.  I'm
not an IP lawyer, and I doubt you are, either.  This isn't the forum
for it.  Etc., etc.  I stand by the characterization I gave above, and
if you have a difference of opinion and act upon it, then some day a
court of law will decide which of us was right.

Ethan

-- 
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws [that have no remedy
for evils].  They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor
determined to commit crimes.
		-- Cesare Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishments", 1764
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 482 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://pidgin.im/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100824/5e54c780/attachment.sig>