On Fri, Apr 11, 2008, Alex Rousskov wrote: > If you are serious about this _and_ want to hide some appliance source > code, then you should not rely on answers from this or any other > non-legally binding forum. Besides the basics, many folks have different > opinion on what GPL really means (e.g., I am sure some will disagree > with or at least clarify parts of the above response). Starting at the GPL FAQ, which of course doesn't constitute legal advice: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins "If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means the plug-ins must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when those plug-ins are distributed." The only opinion that matters is the opinion you can get from a judge in a court, but its sufficiently grey for it to be risky. Of course, risk analysis is a completely different area (ie, how much risk versus profit for a particular thing; figuring out whether its worth it) and again, way off topic for here. People should be careful :) Adrian
