GPL FAQ 3878
It is completely the opposite of what is being said by myself and others, in the referenced message or elsewhere.
Then it is completely nuts. We are all saying that linking GPL with non-GPL stuff does NOT violate the GPL licence.
It may well violate the other code's licence, of course.
misc question. Sun and said: That shouldn't be happening. What's the wattage on your machine's power supply? Next time, snip it so only the relevant bits are included. snip ITYM "dpms". Speling...
See the difference?
There is no distinction. Both create "derived works". You are allowed to do both.
What you are likely not allowed to do (probably by the other codes licence) is distribute the joint code under GPL, which by the terms of the GPL, you must do if you distribute your part of that joint code under GPL. But then maybe your other codes licence allows it! We don't know.
No. Making a derived work has a quite specific meaning in law. Look it up in the GPL definition of terms part. There is no need to speculate!
And is not compatible with GPL, I should have said.
But does it allow you to create a derived work and distribute THAT? And does it allow you to bind the recipients of the the derived work to provide their clients with the surce code (without further restrictions)?
These are questions for YOU about the OTHER licence.
Why do you ask this? The GPL is quite specific! It says that a derived work (of a GPL work) when distributed must be distributed under GPL. So the only question for you is if you are distributing the derived work under GPL or not. If you are, good. If not, bad.
It is done when you RUN them.
No they don't.
I have no idea what you mean. You would have to show me if it is linked or not. Recall that being dynamically linked at runtime is NOT being distributed linked.
It mere aggregation does not mean that the two works are separate. It also means that there is no...
I have no idea, since I do not have the gd library ... oh, I do!
There is certainly *something* significant happening that is not just a simple configuration problem! One thing of...
usr-lib-libgd.la usr-lib-libgd.so usr-lib-libgd.so.1 usr-lib-libgd.so.1.7.3 usr-lib-libgd.so.1.8.4 usr-lib-libgd.so.2 usr-lib-libgd.so.2.0.28
Well, that looks clear to me. I don't have a libgd.a so it's unlikely I would have something linked statically against it. I probably have stuff linked dynamically against it, so it would have been distributed "unlinked". I do the linking when I run it.
Distribution of the library must accord with its own licence. We don't know what that is.
You seem still not to get it: dynamic linking against a library is done by the user, not the distributor (of the application or the library).
Hello All, i am trying to get X working with 2 monitors in fedora core2. I have one...
They aren't "included". Headers don't supply code (in general; they can). They are regarded as part of the tool chain used to build and use the code, consisting largely of interface declarations.
Peter