Re: facultative linking and libraries. ...
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 09:45:57AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> 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*.
Yes, ...
> > 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.
No, i am speaking about a switch for end user who want it to compile
libreadline support in, if they want it.
> > 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 think i remember it was about linking a GPLed program with a proprietary
library dynamically, if there was a binry compatible free version available.
Or something such.
> > 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.
mmm, ok, even if you distribute source code only ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
>
Reply to: