David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Oct 12, 1:59 am, Anthony Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> If the GPL part is provided in a separate binary for which an >> alternative non-GPL implementation can be substituted without recompiling the >> main app, you might not have to make the source code for the full application >> available. I expect such an alternative implementation would have to be >> actually available, and not just theoretically available. I am not a lawyer, >> so if you intend to try this you probably ought to get proper legal advice. > > If there's some reason you think that makes a difference, I'd love to > hear it. I can't imagine why that would be so. > > In any event, my answer would be that so long as neither work is a > derivative of the other, you are just fine. Since hoard contains none > of your code and your code contains no hoard code (assuming you don't > design it specifically around hoard) you are perfectly fine. They are > two legally-independent works. There is no reason to license for one > should affect the other.
Like I said, I am not a lawyer, but the "assuming you don't design it specifically around hoard" is the bit I was referring to --- if your code only works with hoard, you're in a gray area, and ought to get proper advice. Anthony -- Anthony Williams Just Software Solutions Ltd - http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk Registered in England, Company Number 5478976. Registered Office: 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
