Re: On interpreting licences (was: KDE not in Debian?)
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 12:22:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > Hypothetical: I build something under a proprietary license, and then
> > > > use the dl*() calls to access a GPLed library (let's use Readline for
> > > > example). Even though my software doesn't strictly-speaking contain
> > > > Readline, it doesn't function without it being present. I'm clearly
> > > > going beyond "mere aggregation" or using a fork-exec.
> >
> > Either the program uses readline or it doesn't. If it does use readline,
> > and it's distributed with readline, then, strictly-speaking, it contains
> > readline.
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 09:47:44AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> I disagree.. If it was not built using one piece of readline (ie, none of
> readline's headers) it does not contain readline until it is run.
The GPL doesn't say that a program has to be built using headers.
Your claim would mean that if, for example, I use a hex editor on a program to
alter the libraries it uses, that I would be able to build programs that
are built on GPLed code but which aren't bound by the GPL.
> The GPL can't control usage, only distribution.
True. Which is why I pointed out that it matters how the program is
being distributed.
> This is different than the KDE and Qt situation in which Qt's headers
> are included and compiled in the traditional manner.
It's not that headers are a non-issue, but they're not the only issue.
> I am of the opinion that static vs dynamic linking is irrelivant
> because in Qt's case the inclusion of Qt happens before linking.
I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter because working copies of
the program are being distributed, and those working copies contain
both QPL and GPL licensed code.
The GPL doesn't care how the program is built -- that's not something
that matters to the GPL.
--
Raul
Reply to: