Christopher Curtis wrote:
>> [...] (and the non
>> GPL code having functionality that is dependent on GPL code
>> seems a pretty strong hint I think, that this is not mere aggregation),
> The GNU project is very explicit that your interpretation does not match
I think it does reasonably well, and the passage you quote is
deliberately evasive about technical details. I think all
the talk about the technical mechanisms is irrelevant. What counts
is dependence. If I take your package and remove the GPL code, does
the package still perform the primary function that is claimed for it ?
If the answer is no, then the package is (IMO) clearly derived
from the GPL code, and therefore must meet the GPL licensing conditions.
(This is ignoring GPL code with extra exception clauses, like Linux etc.)
Gimp-developer mailing list