Jorg Schilling wrote: [...]
> Sorry, but I do not believe people that put things into a GPL FAQ that > are obviously wrong. Let me give a single example to avoid wasting too > much time: > The FSF GPL FAQ e.g. incorrectly claims: > Linking ABC statically or dynamically with other modules is > making a combined work based on ABC. Thus, the terms and > conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole > combination. > The GPL does not contain the term "combined work", so this is an > invalid claim. The GPL does, however, contain the term "work based on [the Program]". Calling it a "combined work based on [the Program]" does not change the fact that it is a "work based on [the Program]". The "combined" is merely a clarification on the term. > The GPL rather talks about a "derived work" and simply linking two > modules together does definitely not make module B a "derived work" of > module A if module A calls code from module B but module B does not > call code from module A. No, but the combined work (A+B) (i.e. a binary produced by linking module A with module B) is a "work based on" A, and hence (A+B) must be distributable under the terms of the GPL. Distributing the sources of A with the sources of B may be fine, but Debian would not be legally allowed to distribute a binary produced by linking A with B, since this would not be "mere aggregation". You brought up the question of Cygwin in a previous message, but that is covered by the exception given in the second-last paragraph of section 3. -- Hubert Chan - email & Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.uhoreg.ca/ PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA (Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
