> 	Well, AFAIK that particular aspect of the GPL has never been tested
> in court.

That is true, but that should not prevent people from reading the law, and
trying to understand it.

>	    But this is precisely what the GPL forbids. In particular,
> if I take a GPL DLL and if I write a program that uses this DLL,
> even if my program does not contain any outside code itself, I must
> release it under the GPL

... and as far as I understand the law, there is absolutely no case for the
source code of the program in this situation. For the binary, on the other
hand, even shared libraries come with declaratives headers, which are under
GPL too.

The argument of the FSF lawyers here is that the program needs the GPL
library, it does not work without it. But the whole principle of the
copyright laws is to consider software as a work of art. There is no need
for a work of art to work.

Post a reply to this message