On May 21, 2:45 pm, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What about if it does not "contain" the GPL program, ie. the two > could be distributed separately and are not "fused"? Like if they > occupy separate program files and there is no source code mixing, > but the non-GPL one depends vitally on the GPL one? > > If it depends `vitally' on the GPL program, then they are fused by > definition.
And therefore distributing them even separately through different channels is considered the same as distributing them as a whole. So, in other words, the following holds true: If I decide to use GPL code in my program, I am agreeing to "pay for the code" with my own code -- because then I am forced to release my own code as GPL as well. I can't even release it under another "free" system, no, it must be UNDER THE GPL! What is the point of this?! Is it because nothing is truly "free" in the sense of having absolutely no cost, and thus to pay "compensation" to the "free" software community for the work they did in creating the software, it is done with one's own code? Of course if I don't want to write free or GPL code, I don't have to -- I just don't go and use the GPL code (or, I could try to negotiate a more acceptable license with the author(s)), but is the interpretation above right? _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
