2 ms·
Don't they claim that the linking rule works via derivation? Yes.. it was the closest thing I could think of where the two pieces of software are fairly separa
by rgbrenner 13y ago
Don't they claim that the linking rule works via derivation?
Yes.. it was the closest thing I could think of where the two pieces of software are fairly separated. I mean you could have a huge proprietary program, and a developer calls gsl_pow_int() from the GNU scientific library, and the entire program must be licensed under the GPL.
I think that's about as close as you're going to get.
If you're looking for a case where the FSF said a piece of software had to be licensed under the GPL, even though it was NOT a derivative work, I don't think you'll find it. The reason it must be a derivative is copyright law.. the GPL can't unilaterally change that.
- Dylan16807 13y agoThe GPL can't extend copyright law, but it can refuse to let you distribute. It's possible to make a license that would say "can't be distributed with other software that does X". But good, I'm glad there's nothing like that in the licenses here that I missed. Just the normal derivation-based questions.
- rgbrenner 13y agoYes, you are right.. I didn't think of that case.. They cover this question in the FSF GPL faq: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation And they do have a requirement if you do so: The only condition is that you cannot release the aggregate under a license that prohibits users from exercising rights that each program's individual license would grant them.