Luke Skywalker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:47:25 +1100, Tim Churches > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >So there you have it: there must be some portion of the GPLed Program > contained in > >the other work for it to fall under the scope of the GPL, and/or as > defined as a > >derivative work in local copyright law (local because the GPL does not > nominate a > >particular jurisdiction for covering law). > > Has someone worked with Qt for Windows before, and could tell us > whether it involves static or dynamic linking? > > If dynamic, then, it doesn't make sense that an EXE that builds on Qt > should also be GPLed.
Well you do need to consider whether any headers or declarations from the GPLed library need to be included in the source code of your non-GPLed programme - if so, then the latter also needs to be GPLed (if you distribute it to thers). There is also the issue of whether you can directly include the names of the functions being called from the GPLed library (and the signatures of those functions) in your non-GPLed programme without your programme then being considered a derivative work. This comes back to the definition of derivative work, which I understands differs in different national copyright laws. One commonly adopted tactic is to write a dual-licensed wrapper around the GPLed library. I am unable to comment on whether that is a legally sound or morally justifiable strategy. Tim C -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
