Tim Churches wrote: > > The key verb is "containing", and I'm sorry, but "link" (or "reference" or > "call" or whatever other verb could reasonably used to describe > dynamic run-time linking) does not mean the same as "contain".
What's interesting with respect to distribution of works (of course, since the tangential coverage of the usage of a program isn't important in this subthread) is that, to take one project built upon code typically licensed under the GPL, the KDE developers provide various libraries under a variety of licences: http://developer.kde.org/documentation/licensing/licensing.html It would surprise me if things like kdelibs weren't significantly dependent on Qt, which in most (if not all) KDE-related situations is distributed under the GPL. Yet a number of libraries and components have other GPL-compatible licences such as the LGPL. And in the case of some libraries such as KHTML the usage of the LGPL has permitted similarly licensed variants such as WebCore which have no such dependencies on Qt. I'd echo many other people by saying that dynamic linking certainly makes the situation more difficult to trivially comprehend, but I suppose the GPL and associated explanations attempt to communicate the assertion that distributing a program in binary executable form which links to GPL-licensed libraries should be accompanied by the sources for that program (or an offer to provide them), along with the rationale that such a program is only useful in the presence of such libraries and should therefore be considered as a larger work comprising such libraries. Whether section 0 of the GPL (which states this) can be realistically upheld is a matter for the legal profession, I'd imagine. Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
