David Brown wrote:

>The GPL only coveres distribution, not execution.  GPL code can be linked
>with even proprietary code as long as the result isn't distributed at all.
>  
>
This is getting fairly offtopic, but I thought it might be worth 
mentioning that this is not quite so clear-cut.

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).

On the other hand, a similar practice is commonly accepted for Linux 
kernel modules.

Consider a situation where someone created a compatible but non-GPL 
replacement for some major GPL library, and GPL-incompatible software 
that could be linked against that library...or the original GPL 
library.  Lets say the original GPL library is sufficiently better that 
most users link against it.

The above could be extended to turn any GPL program into a library 
first, then create a crappy compatible library...

I really don't know what the legal interpretation of that would be.

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners