🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ZsHyeB7w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (Lieutenant 030)

mathew> The question is: why should my function bar(), written only by
mathew> me, have to be distributed under the GPL just because it calls
mathew> function foo()?  Why can't I just say "the functions in this
mathew> .c file are under the GPL; the functions in this .c file
mathew> aren't"?

charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:

> You can.

>>>>> On 24 Jan 92 16:07:00 GMT, mathew@mantis.co.uk (Lieutenant 030) said:

mathew> Ah!  This is news to me.  Good news too.

No, it is not news to you.  Read your question again.  Given the two
source files

	gnu.c		(under GPL)
	mathew.c	(written by you)

You can decide how to distribute (or not distribute) `mathew.c', even
if some function in `mathew.c' do call a function defined in `gnu.c'.

However, if you campile a binary `a.out' from the two source files
`gnu.c' and `mathew.c', then a.out will clearly be a derivative of
both files.  Thus, if you distribute a.out (a derivative of `gnu.c')
then you must also be willing to distribute the full source for
`a.out', i.e. both `gnu.c' and `mathew.c'.  Given FSF's goal, that
seems very reasonable.  But that wasn't what you asked about.