> > > > However, from context, it looks as if you mean "binary" to mean "file" > > > > and not "program". > > > > Excactly.
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > The GPL doesn't require that you distribute all of the executable files > > for a program. However, it does require that you distribute (or make > > arrangements to distribute) all the sources for the program, On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 04:40:28PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > No. GPL.3 does not speak about "programs" at all. Here's proof to the contrary: <quote> 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form... </quote> > > There would be little point to using the GPL if someone could just > > dynamically link it to a proprietary library which was available, free > > of charge, in source form, to anyone -- with the slight caveat that > > anyone who distributed modifications to that proprietary library must > > contribute everything owned by any author of the program to Bill Gates. > > Perhaps. But I don't think the author of a program has the legal power > to prevent that. I think you should back up this kind of claim with a reference to the relevant copyright law or legal precedents. [It's fairly clear that the GPL says that this kind of practice is forbidden, but this claim of yours is independent of the GPL.] -- Raul
