Re: GPL question

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > The end result contains code from a GPL program, and the GPL
   > states that the whole work has to be licensed under the same
   > terms.

   I am still confused. Does mere linking make the result realy
   *contain* code from a GPL program?

Yes.

   For example, if you go to
   <http://www.q-software-solutions.de/products/lcc-win32/index.shtml>
   , download and install lccwin32.exe and look in its "lib" folder,
   there is a gdbmdll.dll library, yet the package neither is GPL nor
   are the sources publically available.

   Now go to
   <http://www.q-software-solutions.de/products/lcc-linux32/index.shtml>
   and click through and download lccdist.tar.gz. In the "bin" folder
   there is a "lcc" program that requires libbfd-2.11.92.0.12.so, the
   same folder contains a binary libbfd-2.11.92.0.12.so, yet the
   package neither is GPL nor are the sources publically available.

   How come they are allowed to do that but I am not?

They aren't allowed to do that (assuming that the license for those
programs is really not compatible with the GNU GPL).  I'll forward
this to the FSF lawyers.  Thank you.

   > From the GNU GPL FAQ:

   Where can I find this GNU GPL FAQ?

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

   Is it normative? Legaly binding?

Only the court can decide what is binding or not.

   > | I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary
   > | system. Can I do this?

   Again, is mere dynamic linking the same as "incorporating
   GPL-covered software"?

Yes.