Re: "rescuing" code from the GPL

[Shriramana Sharma <samjnaa@gmail.com>]

Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> > 2. Y modifies this program to use Qt (under the GPL), creating
> > 02-qt-nothirdvar.cpp, and distributes it under both the BSDL and GPL.
>
> Well, they could distribute the source code under the BSD, as the source 
> code isn't a derivative work of Qt just by using it. But they could not 
> legally distribute a compiled binary that included copyrightable parts of 
> GPL-only Qt. You could distribute binaries under the GPL.

I don't agree with some points in this.

The question is not whether a work *includes* parts of Qt or not. The 
very fact that it is dependent on Qt for its functioning makes it a 
derivative work, and it *must* be licensed under the GPL when 
distributed, whether in source form or compiled form.

Please point out the flaw in this reasoning. Thank you.

Shriramana Sharma.