On 2006-10-16, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Then you're introducing another reason why the unlinked work may be a derivative of the GPL work. Sure. It could also have copy&pasted GPL code inside. Let's focus on things that can "reasonably [be] considered independent and separate works". > 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. Shaky? Not according to the GPL: "this License, and its terms, do not apply to those [independent and separate works] when you distribute them as separate works." Merijn -- Remove +nospam to reply _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
