You can always ask the original authors if you have a legitimate reason to be unable to follow up on that chunk of the GPL. People that GPL their code tend to be pretty generous, so there is a good chance they will try to help you, if you have a good reason.
I agree with Dreamora; GPL should never be used for libraries; it just kills their usability, complicates them (such that the API doesn't even come into play when deciding if a library is worth the bother), and annoys the hell out of people. If a free library wants to be used freely, it should be on the MIT license with some added chunks, or at least LGPL. A library has no direct "end user" (the developer is the end user, but he seems to get two piles of demands instead of just one), and the GPL does not approach that very kindly. The end user is quite free to do what he wants with the software, so why isn't a developer who uses the library for an end user application?
I did recently watch "Revolution OS" (an interesting documentary), which gave me a rather different (more appreciative) view of Stallman's goal to encourage sharing. I think his error is that he doesn't recognize "fun" and unnecessary software, which I think stands as an exception. He also doesn't seem to recognize that there are a lot more places where things can be free, aside from software; if GPL did make all software free via its viral ways, it would be completely unfair in contrast to other industries.
I agree with Dreamora; GPL should never be used for libraries; it just kills their usability, complicates them (such that the API doesn't even come into play when deciding if a library is worth the bother), and annoys the hell out of people. If a free library wants to be used freely, it should be on the MIT license with some added chunks, or at least LGPL. A library has no direct "end user" (the developer is the end user, but he seems to get two piles of demands instead of just one), and the GPL does not approach that very kindly. The end user is quite free to do what he wants with the software, so why isn't a developer who uses the library for an end user application?
I did recently watch "Revolution OS" (an interesting documentary), which gave me a rather different (more appreciative) view of Stallman's goal to encourage sharing. I think his error is that he doesn't recognize "fun" and unnecessary software, which I think stands as an exception. He also doesn't seem to recognize that there are a lot more places where things can be free, aside from software; if GPL did make all software free via its viral ways, it would be completely unfair in contrast to other industries.