> The problem with this is what I've called the "patch hole" in another > context [1]. The problem with this definition is that I can *always* > distribute GPL'ed parts separately and re-combine them arbitrarily upon > execution, and it's not even particularly hard. Write your code with the > GPL'ed code embedded. At the end, before you distribute, extract it and > record the extraction so your program can "rewind it"; you're left with > nothing in your code that is GPLed. Later, the user will go get the GPL > software, and you software "rewinds" the extraction process, and the user > is left with something that is byte-for-byte identical to what you weren't > allowed to distribute by the GPL.... so what good was the GPL?
What you described is not ok according to the GPL - since you distributed a binary thats derived from GPL software (and you didn't publish it source code under the GPL too). > Nobody really knows what the GPL means when it gets down to it; If you don't know, you should ask the person whose GPL code you are using. -- damjan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
