🚀 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?

I suspect that you could -- if you never ship any binary that contains any
FSF code, and you ship your own .o files and makefiles, and then ship FSF
source in a separate tar archive (or even in the same one, given the "mere
aggregation" clause), then I don't see how the GPL can be considered to
affect your code.  To prevent anyone else from screwing you up, you'd then
need to notify your customers that they have no right to distribute a copy
of the binary after linking it.

For FSF to claim otherwise, they'd basically need to do a "look and feel"
claim, since your code could equally well be linked with non-Gnu-licensed
software that provides the same interface.

-- 
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu