LibRaw: possible license issues

[Frantisek Kluknavsky]

On 11/26/2012 08:29 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de> said:
>> Well, dlopen'ed modules/plugins aren't directly linked, i.e. there is
>> only an indirect dependency. AFAICT (IANAL), this is what makes the
>> legal key-difference.
> IANAL either, but neither is what matters in the legal sense; "derived
> work" is what matters.  Linking is just an indicator (that is not 100%)
> of a derived work.
>
> As for when the linking is done, (static at build, dynamic at load,
> dynamic during run), that makes zero difference as to whether something
> is a derived work.
>

Hi.

It might be meaningful to ask this question broadly: How can be two 
programs related and still not violate the "derivative work under 
copyright law" thing? (law of US/EU/international/any important country) 
When are they independent and when a new combined work emerges?
Two distinct files dynamically linked together violate, yet one Fedora 
iso file bundling both does not violate - why?
As stated before, linking is probably irrelevant. Bits in symbol table 
originating from the other file are references - references are 
generally permitted. AFAIK copyright law does not care about 
functionality. Just text, translation and modification.

Please, enlighten me.

Frantisek Kluknavsky