Ville-Pertti Keinonen wrote:

> While you're essentially correct, the above could also be interpreted 
> to mean that you can get around the GPL by having the end-user link 
> GPL-incompatible software against a GPL component.  According to RMS, 
> this is not acceptable, even for a minor, optional component (he 
> demanded that CLISP change its licensing due to the optional ability 
> to link against GNU readline; the author changed to GPL).


iirc (haible had the history on one of his websites, it probably is 
still there, but i don't remember the URL) you could chose whether to 
include readline when you built clisp (from sources).  so he was 
distributing something that, based on build options was linked with a 
gpled library.  it had nothing to do with dynamic linking

>
> ...

hs