Jean-Marc Valin wrote: > > I was actually discussing that with Richard Stallman yesterday... Here's what he > had to say: > > "In a technical sense, the user does perform the act of combining them. > But in truth they are inherently connected regardless of what any > specific user does. They are designed to work as one program, and > this is true before any specific user obtains his copy and runs it. There is a problem, as he says, if Piper requires these libraries to run. I don't believe that any of the libraries that Jean-Marc is concerned about will be required. But, they should not be shipped/distributed with Piper either. Then, it is the user's concern. > I agree with him: we should play safe by explicitly specifying the exception, > but the fact that the user does the linking, makes (I think) linking a non-free > node with a GPL node legal. Since the linking is only done on demand at > run-time, there's no redistribution problem. Yes, I agree. We should include that exception. It doesn't mean, however, that GPL and non-GPL libraries can legally be linked and then distributed together. I think that we should also provide such a warning to users in the license. > Richard Stallman: > Yes, that makes sense. You could say, for instance, that CORBA > communication through the interfaces you have designed, is in your > view interaction between two separate programs and does not make the > communicating modules into a single program. Yes, it makes sense to provide that exception, just for clarity's sake, although it doesn't seem the GPL will make CORBA linking illegal anytime soon. > Do we all agree? I agree. Now, the question is GPL or LGPL ;-) I vote for GPL with the afore mentioned exceptions. Jeff -- J.W. Bizzaro jeff at bioinformatics.org Director, Bioinformatics.org: The Open Lab http://bioinformatics.org/~jeff "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -- Martin Luther King, Jr. --