On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 03:30:40PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Tuesday 14 March 2000, at 8 h 54, the keyboard of SCOTT FENTON > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Section 2b is the viral clause and it reads as follows: > > You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or > > in part contains or is derived from the > > Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to > > all third parties under the terms of this License. > > It is not very clear from Section 2b that linking makes a program > GPL-infected, and dynamic linking too (see the rms/Torvalds discussion about > binary modules in the Linux kernel) but not popen() or system() (see the > discussion about the apt tool by Corel which popens dpkg).
Let's not be silly here. Whether or not dynamicly linking with Qt causes a GPL incompatibility is a nonissue because using the Qt include files causes Qt code to be copied verbatim into the body your program's source code and thus makes those parts of Qt a part of your program. I personally consider dynamic linking use, and as we all know, use is beyond the scope of the GPL. But when bits of _executable C code_ in the form of macros from the Qt include files are copied into your program it's more than just use - it constitutes distribution as well. Those who aren't convinced should check out some of the macros in the Qt include files for themselves. That said, I think we can all pretty well agree that copying code verbatim from or into the body of a program's source code is covered by the GPL and that this discussion can safely end here. I'm tired of hearing about it. -- Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
