> 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? Yes. 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? They aren't allowed to do that (assuming that the license for those programs is really not compatible with the GNU GPL). I'll forward this to the FSF lawyers. Thank you. > From the GNU GPL FAQ: Where can I find this GNU GPL FAQ? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html Is it normative? Legaly binding? Only the court can decide what is binding or not. > | 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"? Yes. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss