This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said: > If the GPL'd source is only useful with GPL-incompatible libfoo, then > you and the shipper of libfoo are combining to ship a program which > contains incompatible licenses, and this is not allowed. > > If the GPL'd source is useful with various equivalent libraries, some > GPL-incompatible, some not, then the shipper of the GPL'd source is > not breaking any rules, because they are not necessarily intending to > combine their code with the incompatible code. > > If you are shipping *binaries* however, which declare shared library > dependencies on the GPL-incompatible library, then that excuse > vanishes.
Agreed to all of this. Unfortunately, it still doesn't answer the question I asked about transitive linking, where there is no shared library dependency from the GPL application to a GPL incompatible library. But I think you're repeating the same answers, and I'm repeating the same questions, so maybe we should just drop it. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
