<div dir="ltr">On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Oleg Goldshmidt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pub@goldshmidt.org">pub@goldshmidt.org</a>></span> wrote:<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><div></div><br></div>
I hope it resolves your confusion.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote></div>Unfortunately not. I am familiar with the relevant parts, and I agree that if you read them over and over again, you get kinda convinced that mixing GPL code with closed-source objects is the work of satan. But I'm looking for a smoking gun.<br>
<br>If the object code was compiled against GPLed header files, it may be considered containing copyrighted material from its GPLed counterpart, but the GPLed wrappers solve this. But if nothing was really *copied* from the GPLed code, the GPL has no say about the object code.<br>
<br>So if both sets of software, proprietary and GPLed, arrived Glatt Kosher on the target computer, where is the wrongdoing? It's true that the mix-compiled binary can't be *copied* anymore, because the GPL is void from this point and on, but is the compilation itself illegal? Or the execution of the binary?<br>
<br>To my best knowledge, the only attempt to control the usage of software, once copied legally on a computer, is those questionable EULAs, which take the form of a contract between the user and the software vendor, and are not based on any general laws.<br>
<br>This may be a good time to say: IANAL either.<br></div>