Kyle McDonald wrote: > I thought that shared libraries resolved this, since the 'linking' was > done at run time by the end user, and not the distributor. The > distributor is, as I understand it the one that is prevented from > linking (and then distributing) GPL and non-GPL code. So static linking > is out, but dynamic linking should be ok, no? > > Is that a too simplistic reading of the license?
Yes it is to simplistic a view unfortunately. However this is no the place (the ARC aliases are not for license interpretation discussion) and I am not the person (I am not a lawyer or otherwise sufficiently trained) to explain to you why. -- Darren J Moffat
