🚀 go-pugleaf

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

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

   Why do the FSF tell me how I can distribute my code?  Why can't they just
   tell me how to distribute their code?  After all, I'm not trying to tell
   them how they can distribute their code, am I?  So why are they doing that
   to me?

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, you can distribute, say, GNU alloca.c with your programs.  As long
as you are *very* clear about which is yours and which is not, and the
GNU stuff is appropriately labelled, and you don't inextricably
combine them (by linking an executable, for example), then you are
fine.

In fact, nothing within the FSF copyleft would prohibit what you say
you want to do at all.

	-mib