Thomas Bushnell BSG writes: > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> There is clear tension between this and the "mere aggregation" clause. >> However, given that source code is only required for *contained* >> modules, shared libraries or the kernel would seem to be more governed >> by the mere aggregation clause than the treatment of the executable >> work itself. > > You can distribute compiled binaries only if you distribute all the > interface definition files for building them under GPL-compatible > terms. There is a special exception for some cases, but when that > special exception does not apply, it does not matter what the mere > aggregation clause says, because that clause is simply not about the > compiled binaries section of the GPL.
My reading of the "interface definition files" clause is that it only applies to those associated with the modules contained in the executable. That is, it means header files as well as implementation files (plus Makefile-equivalents, through the "build scripts" bit) for what actually goes into the binary. It is not clear to me that standard library header files qualify as "associated interface definition files". Even if they do, the viral part of it seems to be abuse of copyright when applied to an underlying software library. Constraining the license of software that is: (a) in no way dependent on or derived from the GPLed work, (b) by design used by the GPLed work, and (c) would not be subject to the license if the GPLed work were on separate media is not what I would call proper or appropriate use of reserved rights, and I find it hard to believe a court would uphold the interpretation you propose. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]