🚀 go-pugleaf

In some recent postings/email with Paul Eggert on alt.sys.sun, we
ran into some differing interpretations on the library licence.  I
feel that writing and distributing a work which must link with the
GPLL entails a great deal of disclosure of the non-library application
code.  My interpretation was presented to Paul as below.  The indented
text is from the library, the unindented text is my interpretation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 . . .  However, it sure looks to me like the licence does require
the publication of the proprietary code.  The relevant portions are
quoted below, please let me know if I'm misreading.

Section 5, paragraphs 1 and 2 state that a proprietary work which is
linked with a GNU library and shipped to a customer is considered a
derivative of the library.  They call this "a work that uses the Library"
and say it must be distributed according to the rules in section 6.  A
shared library seems to fall into this class.

Section 6 begins:

   As an exception to the Sections above, you may also compile or link a
   "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work
   containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under
   terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of
   the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for
   debugging such modifications.

Thus the customer is explicitly allowed to modify the "work" for his
own use as well as modifying the library.  6a goes on to say:

   [you must] accompany the work [that uses the library] with the complete
   corresponding machine-readable source code for the Library including
   whatever changes were used in the work . . . and, if the work is an
   executable linked with the Library, with the complete machine-readable
   "work that uses the Library", as object code and/or source code, so
   that the user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a
   modified executable containing the modified Library."

Note it explicitly says one must either distribute (a) source or (b)
source and object.  This is source and object for the work, not just
for the library.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question the first:

Paul replies (I paraphrase) that one could make the Library into a
(SunOS-style) shared library.  Then link the application dynamicly.
Ship the application, the shared library, and the Library source.  The
application no longer contains the Library, and hence is not "a work
that uses the Library" as defined in Section 5 and therefore does not
fall under Section 6.  I feel that this *does* constitute a work which
uses the library.  Anybody know for sure?

Question the second:

My interpretation of 6a is that source shipment is required, object
code optional.  But the more I look at it, the less clear it is.  Does
this mean:

  A: You must ship at least one of: the source or the object.
    or
  B: You must ship the source and may optionally ship the object.

-- 
   ``They call to me to make a show of strength
    But I can't go out because my uniform is dirty.''
	"Dictator In A Polo Shirt", Gunnar Madsen/Richard Greene