GPL question [Was: Re: cdrtools]

[Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>]

Daniel Schepler <schepler@math.berkeley.edu> writes:

> Let's put aside for the moment that the FAQ is not meant to be a legal 
> document as opposed to the GPL itself, and that the FAQ is not saying B would 
> be a derived work of A, but rather that the combination would be...
>
> I have a general question about how the GPL is construed to cover the case of 
> dynamic linking.  According to the GPL, section 0:
>
>   The act of running the Program is not restricted...
>
> And since dynamic linking is done at the time the program is run, this would 
> appear to me to be what applies.  In particular, it appears to me that you 
> could satisfy the GPL and still dynamically link against a non-free library, 
> and distribute both, by invoking the "mere aggregation" clause of section 2.  
> (Of course, you would have to be very careful about any inline functions, 
> etc., from the non-free headers...)

I believe that the totaly interchangable option of specifying
"-static" or not should not change the free-ness of the source or
resulting binary. So if you link static and you agree that it is a
violation that way then you should not be able to get away with it by
linking dynamically.

The GPL is viral in nature and specificaly made to work across linking
boundaries. People should not be able to add non-free portitons to the
source by hiding them in libraries.

My 2c,
   Goswin

PS: For proof or disproof ask a lawyer.