a.bokovoy at sam-solutions.net
Tue Mar 5 02:08:02 GMT 2002
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 02:33:15PM -0800, Matt Seitz wrote:
> >Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:03:47 +0200
> >From: Alexander Bokovoy <a.bokovoy at sam-solutions.net>
> >Subject: Re: vfs-module lincense
> >On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 09:14:00AM -0600, Esh, Andrew wrote:
> >> How does that [the GPL] apply to VFS modules that are dynamically linked,
> >Please look at http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins for
> >detailed description why VFS modules for Samba must be under GPL-compatible
> Note the use of "we believe" and "borderline case". In other words, the FSF
> believes that the GPL covers (most) dynamically linked plug-ins, but that this
> is not a certainty. One can very reasonably argue that a plug-in that does not
> contain any of the calling program's code is a separate work, and therefore not
> subject to the GPL license.
> As the author of the GPL, the FSF's interpretation should carry significant
> weight. But just as one should not blindly accept Microsoft's interpretation
> of the GPL (see http://news.com.com/2100-1001-268889.html), one should also not
> blindly accept the FSF's interpretation of a derived work under copyright law.
> Ultimately it will be up to the courts to decide whether a plug-in is a derived
> work or an independent work.
In Samba case it would very interesting to see how a plugin which "does not contain
any of the calling program's code" would work with Samba VFS API,
especially with upcoming cascaded VFS where each plugin is a chain and
should be able to communicate with previous/next plugins.
/ Alexander Bokovoy
Software architect and analyst // SaM-Solutions Ltd.
When you dial a wrong number you never get a busy signal.
More information about the samba-technical