> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote: > > This is all irrelevant. The issue is that you can't distribute GPL > > binaries *linked against* GPL-incompatible libraries.
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 02:16:00AM +0200, Claus Färber wrote: > It's more complicated than that when dynamic linking is involved. Maybe. > It ultimatly does not make sense if you can choose one of several > libraries (with different licenses) that can be dynamically linked > against a program without recompiling it. Maybe. > For example, you distribute a program linked against "libcurl". It works > with "libcurl-nossl", "libcurl-gnutls" -- but also "libcurl-ssl". Is it > linked against a GPL-incompatible library? Maybe. The answer to this question depends on information you've not provided. > > The operating system clause makes an exception for this, but it's not > > available when the program is packaged along with the libraries. > > The GPL does not say "packaged along with", it says "accompanied with". > The later suggests a closer relationship than mere aggregation on the > same distriution medium. True. Utterly irrelevant to the current context, but true. "Dynamically linked against a library" is certainly not the same thing as "mere aggregation" with that library. And, yes, this can be an annoying issue to deal with. > You could only claim that something is "normally" part of the os when it > is not. "What's a part of the os" is also utterly irrelevant in the current context. -- Raul
