Wolfgang Denk wrote:
I really don't want to be arguing the GPL, but I am interested in a technical solution to a problem that is also legally permissible.
Merging two binaries into one, so that A can make function calls into B *is* linking if the function of A depends on the results of the function calls of B.
How do you determine "depends"? If B enables the 2nd Ethernet port, but you never actually use it, then A doesn't really depend on B. Takes these two scenarios:
1) U-Boot runs the binary application that enables Ethernet 2, but it doesn't load the driver for Ethernet 2. Therefore, the functioning of U-Boot does not depend on the binary.
1) U-Boot runs the binary application that enables Ethernet 2, and it loads the driver for Ethernet 2. Therefore, the U-Boot can do Ethernet I/O on this device.
By your definition, scenario #1 is not a GPL violation, but scenario #2 is. So I can merge my closed-source proprietary binary in with GPL as long as I don't enabled the 2nd Ethernet port.
Linux system calls is an explicitely exported interface so it is OK to use this from application code.
So it's okay for a non-GPL binary to call GPL code, but not the other way around?
Please do yourself a favour and re-read the GPL.
I don't think just reading the GPL is enough to understand it. Some parts of it are vague, and their interpretations are debatable.