Re: facultative linking and libraries. ...
Sven LUTHER <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> writes:
> Err, my understanding was that anything is compatible with the GPL, but that
> the GPL just stops you from distributing it without complying with the GPL, i
> am right with it ?
Yes, but the GPL applies to the *whole program*.
> It is perfectly well to use the GPL in any in-house development, linking it
> with whatever you like, as long as it stays in-house.
But you are talking about distributing this program, not just keeping
it in-house.
> Also, my real question was that there was some interpretation of the
> GPL which allowed providing hooks for doing the linking with
> incompatible libraries, but not providing it by default, something
> about the Motif/Lesstif stuff, i think.
The same thing applies there. The "interpretation" you are talking
about is a hole a mile wide that some people would like to drive a
truck through. It would emaciate the GPL entirely.
> I can easily see a problem with this. Imagine a debian package with such a
> patch, where all but the final linking with readline is done, and this last
> linking is done in the postinst or something such. I don't think this is
> conformant to debian policy, but it is legal, isn't it ?
No, it's not legal. The *effect* is to distribute a program made up
of QPL and GPL software all in one. That's not allowed. The court
looks to the *effect* of what you do. The fact that you distribute
the pieces in two parts, with an automated script to combine them, is
irrelevant.
Reply to: