🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <JBW.92Jan27174103@bigbird.bu.edu> jbw@bigbird.bu.edu (Joe Wells) 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?

   Yes.  Furthermore, you can ship a linker with your code, and a shell
   script or Makefile that invokes the linker for the customer.  For example,
   you could ship GNU ld with your program.

   If you use GPL-covered include files to compile your code, the resulting
   object files are covered by the GPL and therefore you must supply complete
   source.  So don't use GPL-covered include files if you don't want this to
   happen.

The extent to which your code and the FSF code are combined as a
"single program" (or application, or whatever) is the operative test.
Some of my prior statements here were incorrect.  The exact nature of
the boundary is decided by a judge.  For advice, pay a lawyer.

   The one thing that is unclear is the effect of aggregation in a
   "self-unpacking" archive.  If this is "mere aggregation", then a
   self-unpacking archive that also invoked a Makefile or linker would allow
   you to ship a single executable file that configures itself when it is run
   the first time without violating the GPL.  I think it would have to be
   possible to unpack the archive normally also.

Note that exactly what constitutes "mere aggregation" is ultimately
decided by a judge.

	-mib