On Oct 11, 10:57 pm, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > (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.
I am still confused. Does mere linking make the result realy *contain* code from a GPL program? For example, if you go to <http://www.q-software-solutions.de/products/lcc-win32/index.shtml> , download and install lccwin32.exe and look in its "lib" folder, there is a gdbmdll.dll library, yet the package neither is GPL nor are the sources publically available. Now go to <http://www.q-software-solutions.de/products/lcc-linux32/index.shtml> and click through and download lccdist.tar.gz. In the "bin" folder there is a "lcc" program that requires libbfd-2.11.92.0.12.so, the same folder contains a binary libbfd-2.11.92.0.12.so, yet the package neither is GPL nor are the sources publically available. How come they are allowed to do that but I am not? > From the GNU GPL FAQ: Where can I find this GNU GPL FAQ? Is it normative? Legaly binding? > | I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary > | system. Can I do this? Again, is mere dynamic linking the same as "incorporating GPL-covered software"? -- Mike Cox (the_real_mike_cox) [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
