On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 14:57:58 +1100, Tim Churches wrote: > Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> In particular: >> >> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html >> >> [quote] >> >> Q: If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean >> that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL? >> >> A: Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library. >> >> [end quote] > > Yes, but the rather fundamental problem with the FSF position above being the > following words as contained in the GPL itself: > > Section 0., Para 1 (assuming zero-based paragraph numbering...): > > "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not > covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running > the Program is not restricted,..." > > Sorry, but "Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the > library." is incompatible with "Activities other than copying, distribution > and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. > The act of running the Program is not restricted."
Tim, Firstly, perhaps you could use a mail/news client that correctly limits lines to (say) 72 characters, that would make it a lot easier to read your comments. Secondly, perhaps you should consider that dynamically linking to a work is creating a derivative work, which most certainly falls under the "modification" clause. Thirdly, I don't think it is particularly helpful for people to go hunting through licences -- whether the GPL or a restrictive, commercial, closed-source we-own-your-first-born licence -- looking for loop-holes. Not only is it immoral and unethical, but it is also dangerous: it is easy to think you have found a loop-hole only to discover that the judge disagrees. -- Steven. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list