Re: "rescuing" code from the GPL

[Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com>]

Shriramana Sharma <samjnaa@gmail.com> writes:

> 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.

Suppose I write from scratch a new library, Tq, that is source and
binary compatible with Qt (huge task, but that's beside the point).
Every app written to use Qt can now instead use Tq without even a
recompile.  Are these apps now suddenly derivatives of Tq as well as
Qt?  I think not.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mans@mansr.com