On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 10:06:11AM -0500, Brian Ristuccia wrote: > 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.
If tehy made headers public domain, would it resolve problem ?
