Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 08:53:18AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote: >> Steve Langasek wrote: >> > Users do not violate the GPL: the GPL does not govern use of a >> > program. >> > But it would be illegal for Debian to *ship* a version of FireBird >> > that uses libreadline. > >> On further research, >> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL seems to imply >> that linking a program to a GPL library (even for personal use) means >> the program must be GPL. > >> This seems like a contradiction. > > I've noticed that the FSF's GPL FAQ does a rather embarrassing job of > distinguishing between use and distribution/modification. Section 0 of > the GPL says: > > Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not > covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of > running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the > Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on > the > Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). > > This clearly trumps anything that might be in the GPL FAQ.
And section 4 says: You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Since there is no express permission to modify (and _not_ distribute), this modification would not be allowed, right? So the user can't modify his own copy for personal use, without following all of section 2's requirements? (2a-prominant notice and 2c-changed interactive message. 2b is satisfied) --Joe
