Mike Meyer wrote: > What I *can't* do is distribute it (or work derived from it, etc.) > unless the entire work being distributed is under the GPL (unless the > license has changed recently, *not* a GPL-compatible license, but the > GPL itself), and meets the requirements of the that license. In > particular, if I distribute an application that has to be dynamically > linked with a GPL'ed library to run, I need to distribute my > application under the terms of the GPL.
Is that really true, precisely as written? It should be possible to distribute code which does have to be dynamically linked with a GPL'ed library in order to run *without* having to distribute under the GPL, provided your distribution *does not include* the GPL'ed library. Am I totally misremembering that the terms of the GPL talk only about *distributing* GPLed code, not about using it, and certainly not about writing other applications which might require it but which might have entirely non-compatible licenses. (Depending on one's definition of "application", you could still be right because what I describe -- a program that can't run without adding something else to it first -- might not be considered an application by some people. I wonder what they'd call it though.) -Peter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
