Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!texbell!nuchat!shell!storkel From: storkel@hijol.shell.com (S. Storkel) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: GPL yet again... Message-ID: Date: 29 Dec 89 19:38:01 GMT Sender: usenet@shell.com Distribution: na Organization: BLUware, Houston, Texas Lines: 34 In article <8912201209.AA03583@wheat-chex> tower@AI.MIT.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) writes: > > Wrong. If your program requires GNU source to be linked in, it's all > covered by the GPL. > > thanx -len You know, I thought I had everything clear until I read this posting. Suppose I write a program and it requires a version of getopt. What happens if I wrap all of my object code into a big archive and distribute it with a note saying "You must link the code with a version of getopt before it will run. Try something like: ld ...". If I distribute something in this fashion and Joe User happens to link in Gnu Getopt it doesn't seem like I'm breaking the GPL. It sounds like it's Joe's fault to me. If I charge $800 million for the object code and don't provide source I'm not going to be in violation of the GPL just because an end user linked my code with some Gnu code. The same principle could be used to distribute stuff that required Libg++ or grammers that need to be run through Bison. Am I correct in thinking that the GPL hasn't been violated until Joe User links my code with Gnu code and then starts to distribute the complete package? If so, why are people so pissed off about the GPL? Personally, I think the GPL is a Good Thing and I wouldn't resort to the method described above but the people who want to be bone heads still have an out - they can write a little installation script that links their object code with everything under the sun... -- Scott Storkel storkel@rice.edu BLUware, Shell Development Company, Bellaire Research Center P.O. Box 481, room 2202, Houston, Texas 77001 (713-663-2993)