| 1 |
* Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò <flameeyes@g.o> schrieb: |
| 2 |
> On Saturday 23 December 2006 22:35, Enrico Weigelt wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I'm not an license expert |
| 4 |
> Then shut up. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> You're wrong, it's true for dynamic linking as well as for |
| 7 |
> static linking. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I don't understand that. Please give some help. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The situation: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
* Some package A is importing an library with some interface I |
| 14 |
* Some other package B provides an library with some interface I |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The author of B can decide who may import an certain interface, |
| 17 |
just because he wrote an lib providing this interface ? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Where does his legitimation come from ? |
| 20 |
Copyright ? -> where's his code here ? |
| 21 |
Patents ? -> are they legal ? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
If this would be true, then evryone who's writing some proprietary |
| 24 |
library can prohibit writing drop-in-replacements. So I wonder why |
| 25 |
so many of them exist, obviously legal. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Where's my mistake ? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
cu |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 33 |
Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ |
| 34 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 35 |
Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: |
| 36 |
http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce |
| 37 |
Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: |
| 38 |
http://patches.metux.de/ |
| 39 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives