🚀 go-pugleaf

In Reply to this Note From: <Per Abrahamsen>
>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.

If gnu.c were published under the LGPL rather than the GPL, mathew.o
could be provided instead of mathew.c to satisfy the copyleft
restrictions.  -David-

# david@wubios.wustl.edu             ^     David J. Camp                #
# david%wubios@wugate.wustl.edu    < * >   +1 314 382 0584              #
# ...!uunet!wugate!wubios!david      v     "God loves material things." #
#        "I am a Member of the League for Programming Freedom."         #