Hi David, > > Lets phrase this in better words as Valdis pointed out: You can't > > distribute an application (binary or source form) under anything else > > than GPL if it uses a GPL library. > > This simply cannot be correct. The only way it could be true is if the work > was a derivative work of a GPL'd work. There is no other way it could become > subject to the GPL. > > So this argument reduces to -- any work that uses a library is a derivative > work of that library. But this is clearly wrong. For work X to be a > derivative work of work Y, it must contain substantial protected expression > from work Y, but an application need not have any expression from the > libraries it uses. > > > It makes no difference if you > > distribute the GPL library with it or not. > > If you do not distribute the GPL library, the library is simply being used > in the intended, ordinary way. You do not need to agree to, nor can you > violate, the GPL simply by using a work in its ordinary intended way. > > If the application contains insufficient copyrightable expression from the > library to be considered a derivative work (and purely functional things do > not count), then it cannot be a derivative work. The library is not being > copied or distributed. So how can its copyright be infringed?
go ahead and create an application that uses a GPL only library. Then ask a lawyer if it is okay to distribute your application in binary only form without making the source code available (according to the GPL). http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL Regards Marcel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html