Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Err, my understanding was that anything is compatible with the GPL, but that > the GPL just stops you from distributing it without complying with the GPL, i > am right with it ?
Yes, but the GPL applies to the *whole program*. > It is perfectly well to use the GPL in any in-house development, linking it > with whatever you like, as long as it stays in-house. But you are talking about distributing this program, not just keeping it in-house. > Also, my real question was that there was some interpretation of the > GPL which allowed providing hooks for doing the linking with > incompatible libraries, but not providing it by default, something > about the Motif/Lesstif stuff, i think. The same thing applies there. The "interpretation" you are talking about is a hole a mile wide that some people would like to drive a truck through. It would emaciate the GPL entirely. > I can easily see a problem with this. Imagine a debian package with such a > patch, where all but the final linking with readline is done, and this last > linking is done in the postinst or something such. I don't think this is > conformant to debian policy, but it is legal, isn't it ? No, it's not legal. The *effect* is to distribute a program made up of QPL and GPL software all in one. That's not allowed. The court looks to the *effect* of what you do. The fact that you distribute the pieces in two parts, with an automated script to combine them, is irrelevant.
