Andrew Suffield wrote:
This does appear intuitively to be the correct answer for the case where two otherwise non-derivative works are combined into a single binary. They don't magically become derivatives, invoking that clause of the GPL, but you still have to follow its rules for binary distribution.
Agreed.
Pathological case: link in a library you don't use.
You wouldn't have to distribute the source of that library, AFAICT. Clause 3 is limited to "the program (or a work based on it, under Section 2)". Clause 0 explicitly defines that to mean the program or a derivative work of it.
Clause 3(a) requires including "the complete corresponding machine-readable source code". The complete corresponding source code to the Program does not include the library.
IOW, tar vs. ld is a technical distinction that really doesn't matter.
On the other hand, I can't think of a scenario where this could possibly matter.
That's never stopped this mailing list before :-)