El Vie 14 Ago 2009 13:00:41 Nicolás Alvarez escribió: > El Vie 14 Ago 2009 06:39:08 Bruce Allen escribió: > > Hi Eric, > > > > Thanks -- this is very helpful. Before going forward, I have a > > question. It sounds as if s...@home is distributing an executable that > > statically links the FFT libs. Is that correct? My understanding of the > > licensing issues is that if the linking to FFT libs is done dynamically > > at run-time on the hosts, rather than statically, then there are no > > GPL/non-GPL compatibility issues. In other words, a dynamic executable > > of pure-GPL code is allowed to dynamically link at run-time to a > > proprietary non-GPL library. > > No, I don't think so. For the GPL, static vs dynamic linking is irrelevant. > You should have the right to modify, under GPL-compatible terms, all of the > code that ends up running within the same process, except libraries that > come with the operating system such as libc (or msvcrt).
See: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs _______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
