On May 21, 4:21 pm, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > mike3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > He would not have to "bargain" for any copy of the GPL program. And > > it (the GPL program) would not have a different license -- the only > > thing that has a different license is the non-GPL program. > > But the non-GPL program has no use of its own. >
Oh, since it depends _vitally_ on the GPL one. > >> The GPL is intended to guarantee the freedom of the code itself > >> _and_ descendants. > > > And the non-GPL code suddenly then becomes a "descendant" of the GPL > > code the instant it is made dependent on the GPL code in _any_ way, > > shape, or form? > > No. The linked executable containing both parts is the descendant. > And the court may very well decide that you are in effect performing > distribution of this descendant if your code has no other viable > purpose, and if there is no viable non-GPLed source. > So then even if both are _not_ linked together, since one _vitally_ depends on the other, then it is considered a single program regardless of separate distribution of the components. It seems then that the GNU license is designed not just to protect a piece of free code's freedom, but to _create more free code_. It is meant to protect free software so that free software stays free. If you use a library, and a non-free program, the end result is not free software, and the GPL protects us from people who wish to do mischeif like that. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss