On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 09:45:57AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > 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*.
Yes, ... > > 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. No, i am speaking about a switch for end user who want it to compile libreadline support in, if they want it. > > 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 think i remember it was about linking a GPLed program with a proprietary library dynamically, if there was a binry compatible free version available. Or something such. > > 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. mmm, ok, even if you distribute source code only ? Friendly, Sven Luther >
