On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 09:17:09AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library > > creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it > > contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the > > library". The executable is therefore covered by this License. > > Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables." > > I see. Thank you, that clarifies perfectly. > > I had thought from previous GPL discussions that "distribute the source > and let users link it" was not a reasonable way to sidestep license > compatibility issues, because the source was still a derived work. Does > this mean that one can distribute the source (or object files, even) of > a program that links to a GPLed library, and just let users link it? > That seems like a rather large loophole.
Trying to duck the license in this manner would probably not amuse a court. The best thing to do is to ignore all the library fluff - does *this code* require or otherwise derive from *that code*? The answer is usually "yes" when linking to a library for which only one implementation of the API exists, and usually "no" when multiple such implementations exist. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
