| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:45:29 +1100 From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org> Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>, Ricardo Galli <gallir@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: GPL only modules Linus Torvalds writes: > Why do people think that using "ln" is _any_ different from using > "mkisofs". Both create one file that contains multiple pieces. What's the > difference - really? The difference - really - at least for static linking - is that "ln" makes modifications to each piece to make them work together, and in the case of a library, makes a selection of the parts of the library as needed by the rest of the program. What ends up in the executable is not just a set of verbatim copies of the input files packed together, but rather a single program where the various parts have been modified so as to fit together and create a whole. Thus it seems quite reasonable to me to say that a statically linked binary is a derived work of all of the object files and libraries that were linked together to form it. IANAL, of course. Dynamic linking is different, of course, if only because the final runnable program is never distributed, but only formed in memory during execution. Also, the shared libraries are not modified and incorporated during linking. Paul. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists