On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 10:29:13PM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote: > Raul Miller wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 01:30:50PM -0500, Brian Ristuccia wrote: > > > Distributing two separate works for which you have authorization, on > > > the other hand, is perfectly ok even if you don't have permission > > > to distribute the combination of the two. Any combination of those > > > works would be done by the end user. Only if the end user chooses to > > > distribute the result would they (not you) be in violation of the > > > copyright. > > > > But the only reason you have permission to distribute a GPLed executable > > is if you're distributing the source under appropriate terms (terms that > > let you modify and redistribute that source code with no restrictions > > beyond those imposed by the GPL). And that includes the source for any > > needed modules. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> No, as I recently observed in another post, that is not what the GPL says. It > says: "all the source code for all modules [the executabe work being > distributed] contains". To contain is something different from to need. While > statically and dynamically linked executables eventually will need the same > set of modules, they don't contain the same set. Contain: to have as a component. I suppose we could digress into a discussion of topology as it relates to program requirements, but for the moment I'll just remind you that: the program won't run without Qt. Perhaps you'll say that all that means is that kghostscript isn't executable code, and therefore section 3 of the GPL doesn't even apply to it. But if that's what you're trying to say, I have to ask: what gives anyone permission to distribute kghostscript? -- Raul
