On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:24:22 +0100, Damjan wrote:
What you described is not ok according to the GPL - since you distributed a binary thats derived from GPL software (and you didn't publish it source code under the GPL too).
No you didn't. You distributed a binary completely free of any GPL code whatsoever. The *user* combined your binary and the GPL to produce another binary, which will never be distributed at all.
In copyright terms, which is what the GPL works under since that is the law it has, what you distributed is completely unrelated to the GPL'ed program; there's no grounds to call it "derived".
You might be on firmer ground if it were legally clear exactly what "derived work" means. Unfortunately, the courts have been skirting around the issue of defining "derived work" particularly as it pertains to software. It is entirely possible that a judge would conclude that your software is a derived work of the GPL software.
Until such matters are unequivocally determined in a court that has jurisdiction over you, do you really want to open yourself to legal risk and certain ill-will from the community?
I'll reiterate my strategy: follow the intentions of the copyright owner unless if I have actual case law on my side.
-- Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die." -- Richard Harter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
