> > (1) Can I dynamically link my application with free libraries > > already present on the target system, even if they're GPL'ed? > > (specifically, libbfd, part of binutils, I believe; and gdbm) > > Not without first consulting a good copyright lawyer experienced in Free > Software law. The FSF says that what you propose to do would infringe > their copyrights. Perhaps you could be a teat case.
I am mighty confused now. Are you saying that what I'm planning to do is not possible? Correct, you cannot link non-free software with a GPL library. If not, why? The end result contains code from a GPL program, and the GPL states that the whole work has to be licensed under the same terms. >From the GNU GPL FAQ: | I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary | system. Can I do this? | You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary | system. The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to | copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you | could incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system, | it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software | non-free too. | A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended | version of that program. The GPL says that any extended version | of the program must be released under the GPL if it is released | at all. This is for two reasons: to make sure that users who get | the software get the freedom they should have, and to encourage | people to give back improvements that they make. | However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered | software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, | you must make sure that the free and non-free programs | communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way | that would make them effectively a single program. | The difference between this and "incorporating" the GPL-covered | software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The | substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so | that they become effectively two parts of one program, then you | can't treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to | cover the whole thing. | If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and | the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat | them as two separate programs--but you have to do it | properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe what | you are doing. Why do we care about this? Because we want to | make sure the users clearly understand the free status of the | GPL-covered software in the collection. | If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it | "part of" a system that users know is partly proprietary, users | might be uncertain of their rights regarding the GPL-covered | software. But if they know that what they have received is a | free program plus another program, side by side, their rights | will be clear. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
