Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is not an issue at all. Except in the GNU Republic. In reality, > linking as such (especially dynamic one) is totally irrelevant > regarding (software) copyright. Ignore that utterly moronic GPL FAQ. > > Your options are: > > 1. Don't distribute the GPL'd stuff and let the users acquire it > separately: > > users have all the rights to use and even adapt (create private > derivatives) of lawfully acquired stuff without "accepting" the > GPL per 17 USC 117;
The problem is that if you are selling the user a package that is not operative without linking to GPL code, the user is actually working as your agent completing _your_ part of the deal when creating the combined work. The user _has_ the right to combine and use (as opposed to distribute) code from you with GPLed code if he so desires. But if the product is not operative before linking to the GPLed code, it is pretty clear that the total product, the stuff for which money has been exchanged, includes the GPLed software. Whether the final assembly is done by the seller, or by the user on behalf of the seller as a part of receiving a usable product, is irrelevant. > 2. include it in your distribution package: > > apart from "additional copies" distributed per 17 USC 117 it > even falls under GPL's own "mere aggregation" clause. Linking a library is not "mere aggregation". Cf. <URL:http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation> -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
