<div dir="ltr">2011/4/10 Oleg Goldshmidt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pub@goldshmidt.org">pub@goldshmidt.org</a>></span><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr"><br>Another point that I mentioned in an earlier post but not sure if it registered. Consider the following hypothetical case. <br><br>Vendor A (fits this case, huh) provides a library to Business B for evaluation, under GPL. Business B actually needs the library to work with their proprietary code and with code from Consultant C. Therefore, Consultant C's verdict is essential for evaluation.<br>
<br></div></blockquote></div><br>I actually did register that remark, and wondered why my original workaround for this doesn't apply. Let me take this to the extreme:<br><br>Suppose that Business B wants Consultant C's opinion with Vendor A's GPLed library but without showing Mr. C any of Business B's sources. And it all has to be statically linked.<br>
<br>Easy: Compile all Business B's sources into object files (.o, you know) but don't link. Send Mr. C the objects and sources Vendor A supplied. Tell Mr. C to compile and link the whole package (scripts, LiveDVDs whatever is needed to make this painless). Now Consultant C has a legal binary.<br>
<br>But even this scenario isn't a threat, if the target market is microwave
ovens one talks to. Unless someone puts a C compiler + linker on the
oven's processor, to compile the code on its first use...<br><br>Corollary question: Given this situation, why should the binary distribution be disallowed to anyone having compilation / linking abilities? It's a bit like asking if I'm allowed to run a cracked version of software for which I have bought a license.<br>
<br><br></div>