From: Samuel Tesla <samuel@...>
Date: 2003-07-11T09:46:15+09:00
Subject: Re: My brief and torrid affair with Ruby.

"Sean O'Dell" <sean@REMOVEME.celsoft.com> writes:
> "Daniel Carrera" <dcarrera@math.umd.edu> wrote in message
> > If you incorporate GPL code into your application, your application does
> > not become GPL.  However, if you choose to distribute said application
> > with the GPL code under a non-GPL license, you are not conforming the GPL.
> > There are two ways that you can avoid non-conformace:
> >   - GPL your application.
> >   - Remove the insterted code.
>
> What you've said above holds true, but I think most people are more
> interested in knowing what their situation is when they DO use GPL'd code in
> their application, and in that way the situation is quite clear: if you use
> GPL code in your application, in order to release it publicly, you must GPL
> your application and you must provide full source code for it.

To pre-emptively clarify.  Of course you can remove the GPL'd code
from your own, but that's an uninteresting case here.  We're only
interested in the case where the GPL'd code *IS* included.

To clarify why we're only interested about what happens when the code
is included.  Ask yourself this question.  Why would I include this
code in the first place?  Because I want its functionality
(obviously).  If there is not an acceptable alternative, I do not have
the time to create that alternative, and I want the functionality,
then I must include that code.

If there were an acceptable alternative, I would just use it.  If I
had the time, I would just write it.  If I didn't really need the
functionality, then I'd just drop it.  But we're not interested in
those cases.  We're interested in the case where I actually did
include the code, and that's the one I delineated above.

So in the [interesting] situation where I actually *would* include the
code, I'm stuck with the GPL.

I hope that clarifies what everybody else has been telling you,
Daniel.

--
Samuel Tesla