🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <NB38eB19w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (Lieutenant 030) writes:

   mib@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
   > Ah!  You have misunderstood.  "Mere aggregation" of your .c file and
   > the FSF's .c file doesn't cause yours to be placed on the GPL, whether
   > they are called "one program" or not.  The restriction is if you use
   > FSF code *in yours* (by modification, for example), or by distributing
   > an executable in which the two are inextricably intertwined.

   So basically, I can completely bypass the GPL so long as the customer has
   his own linker?

You can't put them in the same file.  Any changes you make to FSF
source have to be given (and identified as your changes).  Any code
you write which is legally derivative has to be under the GPL.  You'll
have to pay your lawyer, not ours, but that's the same with anything.
If you don't read the source, you are guaranteed it's not derivative,
so you aren't worse off than with commercial software.  This is not
"bypassing" the GPL.

	-mib