Ulf Ochsenfahrt wrote:> >I've been following this list (and this thread) for some time now. I am not >sure but I think one thing has been missed in this discussion. > >The GPL covers source code, right? > Well, not entirely accurate. The GPL covers the product in question, both the source and the executable. > >Linking with a GPLd something (like gcc, for example) is not allowed if >you're not making it GPL because you use some of the GPLd source code. > >BUT, using source code is not strictly necessary with object-oriented code. > >Imagine the following: >You have >a) an Interface that specifies the methods and functionalities you can >access, this Interface is NOT GPL >b) a Programm linked to that Interface, no GPL >c) a new Object that implements this Interface, e.g. a gcc compiler, that >uses GPLd source code > > Ah. Not bad indeed. as long as the new Object in (c) is GPL'd ... presto! >The Programm cannot be possibly infected by the GPL since it was never >intended to be written for this object and none of the GPLed source code was used >at all. > >Let's take a different example: >3D Max has an interface allowing anyone to write plugins, now if you write a >plugin that is GPLed, 3D Max cannot be infected by that. (The only question >here may be: Are you allowed to write a GPLed plugin?) > >So... >If this "CodeDOM/Compiler/whatever"-stuff only specifies the interfaces it >does not matter if there is really a GPLd object that provides the >functionality at runtime. > > > I think I see the solution from here ... Thanks. The question is, does this preserve the intent of the license. Lemme see: 1. Any changes I make to the compiler itself must remain GPL. 2. I'm not *actually* linking to that library specifically. 3. Implementation of a Non-GPL interface, by GPL code could not modify the Non-GPL'd code's license. 4. Ahhh. Tasty. Garrett _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
