Re: More GPL questions

[Merijn de Weerd]

On 2006-10-16, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
> Merijn de Weerd <merijn+nospam@realemail.net> writes:
>> The more correct terminology is that the OP can only distribute
>> the resulting (i.e. linked) work as a whole under the GPL.
>> If he cannot do that, "then as a consequence [the OP] may not 
>> distribute the Program at all." No infection, just a legal
>> choice: either release under GPL, or don't release at all.
>
> The unlinked work may be affected, too, if its purpose can't be met
> without linking, and thus the act of linking from the enduser becomes
> a formality instead of an available technical option.  

Then you're introducing another reason why the unlinked work may
be a derivative of the GPL work. Sure. It could also have 
copy&pasted GPL code inside. 

Let's focus on things that can "reasonably [be] considered 
independent and separate works".

> However, if
> there are practical uses without linking to the GPLed library (for
> example, if an API-compatible different library exists that could be
> employed equally well), then the case might become shaky where the
> distribution of the unlinked executable or the source is concerned.

Shaky? Not according to the GPL:
"this License, and its terms, do not apply to those [independent and
separate works] when you distribute them as separate works."

Merijn

-- 
Remove +nospam to reply