On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Joerg Schilling wrote: >Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 22:10:43 +0200 (CEST) >From: Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: License of cdrdao will be changed > >>To: Andreas Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > >>> The libedc_ecc code is held in a library which gets statically >>> linked to the cdrdao executable. The library is not available as >>> a separate package so that the cdrdao sources ship with the >>> libedc_ecc sources. The libedc_ecc sources are strictly separated >>> from the remaining cdrdao sources. Does this count as linking GPL >>> incompatible code in? > >>Well, as you say it gets statically linked in. So yes, that counts=20 >>as linking the code in. Since you can't take out libedc_ecc and use=20 >>it in another program, its license is clearly not GPL-compatible.=20 >>This means that if cdrdao is published under the GPL, linking them=20 >>is against the cdrdao license. > >>However, if you publish something under a modified GPL, ie one=20 >>without the "viral" component, then as far as I can see it would be=20 >>possible. This would however change the license terms for the rest=20 >>of cdrdao as well (it would effectively turn into an LGPL license I=20 >>think). > >It will not as the exception is limited to the edc library.
The GPL explicitly disallows additional restrictions in section 6. -- Mike A. Harris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
