Re: Library General Public Licence

Jim Brown <jimbrown32rb(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:

> Responding to Mark's point, my app is a self-contained
> executable that was coded to a standard interface, and
> can be dynamically connected to any ANSI-SQL compliant
> ODBC driver. It cannot be considered a derivative work
> of any particular library in any sense. It can link to
> any library that implements the interface. Mark, I
> think that your argument would apply if I had somehow
> coded to a particular library and my app would not
> function without that particular library.

Agreed. That could be different if one can demonstrate that your
application cannot work with any other DB than postgreSQL.

> But I do want to provide a copy of plsqlodbc.dll in my
> installation program as a default driver, so I'm
> interested in what is required to provide that copy.

For obvious practical reasons, almost all free software pieces do not
care about what sits next to them on the same CD, same network
directory, same USB key or whatever; it's a surprinsingly common
misconception. Since ages magazines have been selling CDs
bundling/mixing software pieces with all different kinds of licences
(free and not) without any legal issue. Serious people have more
important stuff to care than to check if you are shipping one
proprietary CD + one free software CD versus only one DVD bundling the
two.

The only thing that really matters is linking. Non-technical people
may be diverted to the irrelevant distribution bundling issue because
it is easier to understand and closer to what happens with material
goods.

That does not mean you can distribute any piece of free software in
any way you like; it just means that bundling with or without your
proprietary software is irrelevant.