On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 14:43, Kon Lovett <[email protected]> wrote: > Assume a component of package A uses something that is GPL'ed, but no other > component in that package uses the GPL tainted component (it is "just along > for the ride"). Then all components of package A are tainted?
> Doesn't this reasoning lead to the absurd conclusion that any software > installation with a GPL'ed component somewhere is tainted? Or is it just the > act of packaging? Then the Chicken svn repo is tainted since it can be > delivered as a package? As Peter said it has to do with being a derivative work -- if you dynamically link against a library that falls under GPL and you release your application, then you must also release your source code under GPL. Yes, it is transitive. No, simply distributing a package licensed under GPL with your package does not exhibit this problem, there needs to be a functional API dependency which is typically expressed by static or dynamic linking or code inclusion. LGPL resolves this by allowing dynamic linking. As a non-lawyer I approach this by considering it safe to have LGPL in the dependency chain but never GPL, unless the entire chain is already GPL. >> We'd appreciate it if you would remove this dependency. > Done. Thank you Kon. The denizens of #chicken appreciate it. (Feel free to join us sometime.) Jim _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
