Stephen Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> 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. > > In this case, however, the GPLed library in question is Qt, which is > readily available both under the GPL and a commercial license. > Presumably nothing in the example code insists that people use Qt > under the GPL, so couldn't a case be made here that there is nothing > GPL-specific in the example code, and hence the example code can be > distributed?
Of course you are quite correct. I have not thought about this previously. It _does_ provide an interesting snag for people choosing a dual GPL/proprietary business model. It would appear that they can't get more than LGPL level protection (in fact, less) for dynamically linked binaries as long as their differently licensed libraries are binary compatible. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
