Is the GPL actually viral across dynamic linking?

Posted Nov 18, 2024 12:26 UTC (Mon) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
In reply to: Is the GPL actually viral across dynamic linking? by quotemstr
Parent article: Two approaches to tightening restrictions on loadable modules

> I'm not the only one who's skeptical of the FSF interpretation of the GPL as it applies to dynamic linking. In particular, the idea that merely linking to code makes it a derivative work seems unlikely, especially if there's a GPL interposer between the GPL component being called and non-GPL loadable code.

The most comprehensible "rule of thumb" I have heard, from corporate lawyers advising engineering on how to approach things and use to know whether there was some legal issue that could cause problems, was if one work depended /specifically/ on another for its function or meaning. If that was the case, and there was any grey area / question at all on the licence compatibility, then it was definitely a problem for legal.

How well that rule of thumb is in actually deciding, I don't know. As per another comment, I've heard different things from different lawyers about linking proprietary works to GPL libraries. There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus amongst lawyers. Which suggests there is a lack of case law.