Merijn de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The more correct terminology is that the OP can only distribute > the resulting (i.e. linked) work as a whole under the GPL. > If he cannot do that, "then as a consequence [the OP] may not > distribute the Program at all." No infection, just a legal > choice: either release under GPL, or don't release at all.
The unlinked work may be affected, too, if its purpose can't be met without linking, and thus the act of linking from the enduser becomes a formality instead of an available technical option. However, if there are practical uses without linking to the GPLed library (for example, if an API-compatible different library exists that could be employed equally well), then the case might become shaky where the distribution of the unlinked executable or the source is concerned. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
