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. > > 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.
Having thought about it some more, I think we're both correct. cdrdao cannot be published under the GPL, because then linking it to libedc would violate the license. It would however be possible to put a license on it that has everything the GPL has with the special exception that the author of cdrdao allows you to link it with libedc, even if the libedc license does not give you the rights specified in the GPL. Ofcourse then cdrdao would no longer be published under the GPL, but it (that is cdrdao without libedc) would still be under a GPL-compatible license. In the end it's a matter of wording. You say that the "viral" part of the GPL does not apply to libedc because it has a different license. I say that you can't link cdrdao to libedc as long as it's published under the GPL and libedc is not. We mean the same. 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]
