>No true. If those libraries are released under the GPL then the program >must fall under the GPL.
I interpret the GPL to mean that run-time links (i.e. dynamic linking) fall under derivative works created by the user, which are wholly permissible under the GPL. Statically linked libraries are fairly clearly defined as passing on the GPL requirements (as I think I said). Stallman (and you, i'm guessing) would disagree, I'm sure. >The rules are hard and fast. They are also very easy to understand. This is why I said the rules are not hard and fast. I think the only solution is to consider the spirit in which the code is being used -- in the end no-one is looking for court cases, but good, free software. -i [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wienand.org ********************************************************************** CAUTION: This message may contain confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any use or disclosure of this message is prohibited. If you received this message in error please notify Mail Administrators immediately. You must obtain all necessary intellectual property clearances before doing anything other than displaying this message on your monitor. There is no intellectual property licence. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Woolworths Ltd. ********************************************************************** -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
