🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <t9tn10cs2b114b@corp.supernews.com>,
Lyman Neuschaefer <lyman@bcsisims.com> wrote:
>Greetings,
>
>My company is contemplating using GNU libraries for our
>next project.
>
>Suppose we built an executable which links only to the open
>source cygwin.dll and delivered only the executable _without_
>also delivering cygwin.dll.  Would we be in breach of the GPL
>if we refused to provide our independently-developed source
>code needed to build the executable?
>
>I believe we would not be in breach of the GPL because the
>delivered executable, though depending on cygwin.dll, does
>not contain any object code compiled from cygwin GPL'd source
>code, but merely references symbols defined in cygwin.dll.
>
>I've read the GPL and LGPL but don't feel certain my interpretation
>is correct.  Can anyone help clarify on this issue?

It has not been tested in court AFAIK, and it's the subject of frequent,
interminable debates in this newsgroup (I have a feeling your message will
spark another round of it), but the opinion of the FSF (or at least RMS,
acting as its spokesman) is that dynamic linking should be treated
equivalently to static linking, so it would be a violation of the GPL (but
not the LGPL, I believe).  Although you're not literally copying the
library, you're getting the same result as if you had done so; you're just
employing a technical loophole that copyright law was never designed to
distinguish.

As I said, it's a total unknown whether a court would agree with RMS.  If
you want, you could go ahead with your plans, and if you're accused of
violating the license you could go to court and get the precedent set.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.