Re: Preparing PARI 2.3

[Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse@ilyaz.org>]

On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 10:32:35PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > > IIRC the relation of dynalinking to GPL, we are safe.  Anyway, we
> > > > could make an exception in *our* license (for the purpose of linking
> > > > with plotting engines).
> 
> I don't see any distinction in the GPL between the different form of
> linking.

I had a lengthy discussion with RMS circa 10 years ago about
dynalinking with readline (one can compile a DLL with the same ABI as
readline, but with zero editing functionality; if the program works
with such a stub, GPL is not contaminating [BTW, this is what I do ;-]).

> On the other hand, the GPL allow to use the program as you see
> fit, including linking with non-GPL compatible libraries. What it
> forbid on the other hand is to distribute such derivate product.

> > > That will not work if you also link with GNU readline at the same 
> > > time since readline is GPL.
> > 
> > Since readline is not crucial for the functionality of the program,
> > this is also not relevant.
> 
> What is important is what get linked with the default Configure options.
> Readline certainly is linked. At the very least we should disable gnuplot
> support by default.

Why?  Gluplot is not linked by default; the user has a chance to link
it at runtime, though.

> Also I am not going to agree to an exception for a license as obnoxious
> as the gnuplot license, sorry.

What license?  The exception would be for linking with external
plotting libraries; why should one treat gnuplot specially?  Anyway,
with the current architecture, I see no need to do *anything*.

Hope this helps,
Ilya