On Sunday 22 September 2002 22:30, Joerg Schilling wrote: > From: Lourens Veen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Erm, the GPL puts your program under what's known as a > > "strong=20 copyleft". This forbids linking with > > non-GPL-compatible code. I=20 quote (GPL (http://www.gnu.org/ , > > clause 2, sentence 5): > > > >"But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole > > which=20 is a work based on the Program, the distribution of > > the whole must=20 be on the terms of this License, whose > > permissions for other=20 licensees extend to the entire whole, > > and thus to each and every=20 part regardless of who wrote it." > > > >Given that cdrdao without libedc_ecc is under the GPL, cdrdao > > with=20 libedc_ecc linked in is then a derived work, which must > > be=20 published under the GPL entirely. Since the libedc_ecc > > license=20 forbids this, it follows that our premise is > > incorrect. So we must=20 conclude that the parts of cdrdao > > without libedc_ecc cannot be=20 published under the GPL. > > Definitely not correct! > > The Author may put his SW under GPL.
Ofcourse. And he, being the author, can also link it with non-free software. But nobody else can. I can download cdrdao right now, but bulding it would be illegal for me because I would be linking cdrdao with libedc_ecc, which is forbidden by the GPL, because libedc_ecc is not GPLled. I would violate the cdrdao license, but not the libedc_ecc one, because it explicitly allows me to link with cdrdao. > However, as libedc is not GPLd the "viral" part of the GPL does > not apply to libedc - no matter what's written in the GPL. The > problem is that Andreas did not make this clear before. As a > result of this "missing hint" other people did believe that > libedc is GPLd. Yes, the LICENSE file was removed from that directory. That's a mistake. And as you say the viral part of the GPL does not apply to libedc_ecc because it's not under the GPL. It does, however, apply to cdrdao. > Just note: you may put whatever you like into a contract. If > (even parts of) the content of the contract violates "good > morals", the whole contract is void except you put a "healing > clause" into the contract. AFAIK, the GPL does not carry such a > "healing clause". Indeed it does not. > Andreas also did not put this "healing clause" into the contract > so cdrdao did effectively came completely without a license. I disagree. You cannot legally build cdrdao if you link it with libedc_ecc, because that would violate the GPL, but if you want to distribute or modify or create a derived product of the cdrdao code you still have to do it under the GPL. Lourens -- GPG public key: http://home.student.utwente.nl/l.e.veen/lourens.key -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
