Quote:
It depends. If I provide a piece of software which links against a library *when run* it does not break the GPL.
GPL *only* applies to distribution. If you are not supplying that library yoursef the GPL is irrelevant.
Interesting points. Mulling this over, I don't think that you're quite right there, but I think you are right in the sense that the GPL on Ambient's workbench.lib and icon.lib won't affect end-users.
Linking against a shared library is making a derived work - no matter how much of the linking is done at compile time and how much at run time.
For example, in the preamble to the LGPL:
"When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using a shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a combined work, a derivative of the original library. The ordinary General Public License therefore permits such linking only if the entire combination fits its criteria of freedom."
Thus a work derived from a GPL library must be distributed under GPL. From this I understand that it is the creation of a combined work _legally_ that is the issue - distributing parts of that combination separately won't get around it.
However, in this case, since the libraries are completely interchangeable with non-free versions as far as applications are concerned, a work that is derived from a GPL'd workbench.lib is identical to a work derived from the proprietary workbench.lib. You couldn't prove that it was a derivative of the GPL'd workbench.lib.
Yeah. I'm thinking out loud again. I should probably shut up.
Cheers,
Rich
