On 8/14/06, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And to some extent, the FSF must claim that it's not possible to escape the GPL with a second implementation (so that programs linking to readline must still be GPLed, even though you could use libedit as a mostly-transparent replacement, for instance).
Well, if you ship a binary linked against readline, it's not totally unthinkable that the source of the program should be available under a GPL-compatable licence. On the other hand, if you ship the binary not linked against readline, or linked against editline instead, there's no reason that the source has to be distributed under a GPL-compatable licence just because the program _could_ be compiled against readline. If the source is not under a GPL-compatable licence, doesn't that just mean the resulting binary is not distributable at all? The GPL only give rules about redistribution, it doesn't change the licence of anything. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://svana.org/kleptog/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
