🚀 go-pugleaf

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)