Re: GPL question

[Richard Tobin]

In article <85abw3zl44.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup  <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes:

>If the interface is optional, it sounds like there is code in it which
>_only_ serves the purpose of interfacing to readline and does not make
>any sense otherwise.  In that case, it is hard to claim that the whole
>kaboodle was not intended to be linked with readline.

Oh, it was vertainly intended to be (optionally) linked with readline.

>No.  It means that when the derivative is _created_ (and the binary
>in-memory image _is_ a derivative of the parts loaded into it) by a
>_dependent_ third party, some of the responsibility for that act might
>still lie with the distributor.

But the GPL only covers distribution.  Even if the original author has
some of the responsibility for the act of creating the derivative
in-memory image, the GPL does not apply to that act.  If you don't
distribute the derivative work, where does the GPL come into it?

To put it another way, on your theory the author has done two things:
distribute a work which is not a derivative of readline, and contribute
to the creation of a derivative of readline.  Which of these requires
a licence?

-- Richard
-- 
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.