Re: Q: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use
Scripsit Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <email@example.com>
> I think RMS claims that by distributing a program that uses a GPL
> library you are in effect distributing a derived work that includes
> the library even if you are not distributing the library yourself.
> On the one hand it seems strange: how can you be violating X's
> copyright if you never copied X's code?
I think RMS's reasoning is that if you ever distribute the library
to A, you need to accept the contract called GPL - and in that
contract you promise to refrain from ever distributing to B a program
that links against that library and is not GPLed.
That does make some sense formally. But I'm not sure it will work
that way in court.
Henning Makholm "De kan rejse hid og did i verden nok så flot
Og er helt fortrolig med alverdens militær"