Date:	Mon, 9 Jul 2001 15:46:30 -0400
Message-Id:	<200107091946.PAA31290@envy.delorie.com>
X-Authentication-Warning:	envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj AT envy DOT delorie DOT com using -f
From:	DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
CC:	watt-32 AT yahoogroups DOT com
In-reply-to:	<Pine.BSF.4.21.0107091222480.37273-100000@yellow.rahul.net>
	(message from Doug Kaufman on Mon, 9 Jul 2001 12:35:44 -0700 (PDT))
Subject:	Re: [watt-32] Re: License status of WATT-32
References:	<Pine DOT BSF DOT 4 DOT 21 DOT 0107091222480 DOT 37273-100000 AT yellow DOT rahul DOT net>
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> I have gone back and read the GPL several times. As I read it, you
> should be able to link a GPL'd work with a non-GPL'd library, as long
> as the source code of that library can be distributed with the binary.

You may do whatever you wish with GPL'd software as long as you don't
redistribute it.  Only when you give someone else a copy of a binary
that includes GPL'd components does the GPL even come into play.

> I don't see where all linked libraries are required to fall under
> the GPL.

Once linked together, the sources for the combined work
(i.e. including the libraries) must be distributed under the terms of
the GPL.

> Some of the GPL is not quite clear as to its application, especially
> the section on distribution of object code. The GPL must cover the
> "whole work" when source code is distributed, but doesn't cover
> "bundled" applications.

This is actually a pretty clear legal thing.  A "work" is a single
functional entity, perhaps composed of parts which work together.  An
"aggregate" is a collection of independent parts.  The fact that it's
a software program consisting of two exe's and three dll's is
irrelevent - it's function that defines it, not form.

> The section on distribution of object code requires the distribution
> of the source code of modules, but does not specifically state that
> those modules must be distributed under the GPL.

If any part of your binary is GPL, then the whole binary must be
distributed under the terms of the GPL.  This allows for
gpl-compatible licenses (like the X license) for components.

> perhaps I am interpreting too much, but I think that if linked
> libraries needed to be distributed under GPL, it would have clearly
> stated that.

It does:

 `0.  ... and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program
  or any derivative work under copyright law: ...'

 `3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
  under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms
  of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the
  following:

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
    source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
    1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software
    interchange; or, ...'

So, anything derived from a GPL component must include complete
sources, distributed under the terms of the GPL.

- Raw text -