Daniel Schepler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Saturday 12 August 2006 02:47 am, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> Daniel Schepler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > According to the GPL, section 0: >> > >> > The act of running the Program is not restricted... >> > >> > And since dynamic linking is done at the time the program is run, this >> > would appear to me to be what applies. In particular, it appears to me >> > that you could satisfy the GPL and still dynamically link against a >> > non-free library, and distribute both, by invoking the "mere aggregation" >> > clause of section 2. >> >> This does not mean that anything that happens when you run the program >> is not restricted. For example, the act of running GNU cp and sed is >> not restricted, but that cann't possibly mean that the GPL gives you >> carte blanche to go ahead and violate the GPL through use of cp and >> sed. > > I'm afraid I don't see what your point is, here. Of course the GPL > allowing me to use a GPL'd httpd to distribute non-free software > doesn't automatically mean I would be blameless if I used it to > distribute, say, a non-free program foo linked against libmad. The > point, I think, is that distributing such a thing as the non-free > binary of foo along with a package of a shared libmad is essentially > the same as distributing a binary with libmad linked in statically, > which is clearly disallowed. Both are just different ways of > distributing the combined work of foo + libmad.
Yes, I agree completely. This seems to be the exact opposite of what you said in the quoted text above. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
