No, static versus dynamic linking does not make any "obvious" difference with respect to the GPL. In fact the FSF argues the exact opposite.
"- Hi, is your program/work combined with any GPL code?
- No, it's not, I used dynamic linking as a workaround. Now don't forget to make sure you have libGPLx.so and libGPLy.so installed; without these there is not a chance it can work"
Do I find this made up example completely ridiculous and nonsensical? Yes. Could some red-neck court validate this anyway? Sure, why not? The sky is the limit.
This question has been debated a million times already, let's not do it once again. Just Google "GPL+dynamic+linking"
> Look at the difference between GPL and LGPL - does it seem silly to you too?
The LGPL is not defined in terms of static versus dynamic linking.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds