On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:00 PM, David Jeske <[email protected]> wrote:
> > When I write "extension", I mean: "an add-on which is compiled against and > dynamic loaded into the address space of another program, but normally > distributed separately." > > To write a "closed source extension add-on" you have to "link to GPL code > from a closed source domain (the add-on extension)", you have to "depend on > details of the GPL code specifically in closed-source", and you have to > "run > closed-source code (which is not a system library) in the same process as > the GPL code". -- All of which are prohibited by the GPL as far as I can > see. > > Any code which links to (in process) and depends specifically on details of > GPL code must be under the GPL. Even if it's a DLL/dso, it still needs to > be > under the GPL. That's the purpose of the license. This is the reason glibc > is under the LGPL, because if every program that linked to glibc had to be > under the GPL, closed-source programs could not be built with glibc. > > I think this interpretation of the GPL is fairly accepted. I agree, to my understanding this is how the GPL works. People often think that the GPL is simply about protecting code from being stolen and incorporated into closed-source applications, but really that is just a side benefit of the GPL. The major purpose behind the creation of the GPL is to stop GPL code from working with non-GPL code, when RMS made the GPL his intention was to destroy the closed-source development model. I have nothing against the GPL, it is a good license for certain situations, but it does have its problems. _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
