OA>> If your binary that links against GPLed code (be it dynamic or OA>> static "linking") does anything interesting and useful w/o using OA>> the GPLed code (in your example - reading and composing mail), OA>> then it is _not_ a derived work of the GPLed code.
On my experience (based on observing some conversations with Powers-That-Be in GPL) it is not exactly what they think. The example pretty closely matches the case in question (no, it wasn't the mail client, but the relation between main program and GPL-related part was pretty close) and still it was alleged that the code in question doesn't agree with GPL. Direct quote: That you don't distribute binaries does not change the fact that your source code is designed to include <GPLed library> in the program. You cannot do that, <...> your license is incompatible with the GPL. Note: code itself has no GPLed part and is not distributing any GPLed bit. But the fact is is "designed to include" (meaning here "link against") GPLed software - makes it bad. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] \/ There shall be counsels taken Stanislav Malyshev /\ Stronger than Morgul-spells phone +972-3-9316425 /\ JRRT LotR. whois:!SM8333 ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
