🚀 go-pugleaf

coolidge@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) writes:

>FSF's. If I hand someone some object files, and they link with FSF
>libraries, I can't be required to give out source code. If I hand
>someone a binary file already linked with FSF code, my argument is
>that the situation is exactly the same: they can require source to
>the FSF code, which is covered by the copyleft, but they _cannot_
>require source to my code, because it is not covered by the copyleft.

Ok, so suppose you convert the FSF library to a dynamically linked
library, which is linked at runtime (not widespread now, but a few
Unix releases down the road).  Then you release your code, and you
ship it with the dynamically linked FSF library.  Then what you sell
somebody is your code, and you give them the FSF library and the 
sources.  If they run the program, well, then it links them together,
but that's not the way you sold it.

Or, you sell the object code, and you give them the FSF library.
You write an installation procedure for your software that does
a link-edit as part of the process...

What does the copyleft say about this kind of thing?

-- 
Lyle                      Wang             lws@comm.wang.com
508 967 2322         Lowell, MA, USA       uunet!comm.wang.com!lws