una licencia que s� distingue entre el linkaje din�mico y est�tico es la LGPL (Lesser GNU Public License), que se aplica sobre todo a librer�as:
The LGPL In contrast to the GPL, the LGPL expressly permits users to maintain proprietary rights in their own program code\u2014at least, sometimes. The LGPL distinguishes between dynamically linked libraries, which are called only when needed and remain separate from the main program, and statically linked libraries that are swallowed whole and form part of the program\u2019s execution code. If your program links dynamically to a library covered by the LGPL, you have created a derivative work, and the LGPL applies. But the obligations are minimal. Include notice that your program uses the library, provide a copy of the LGPL, preserve any copyright notices associated with the library, and you\u2019re done. It isn\u2019t even necessary to give customers the source code of the library. If your program statically links an LGPL library, by contrast, the obligations are greater. You must provide, or make available, the source code for the libraries that your program uses, as well as object code (the binary language of computers) or source code for the rest of the program. Software developers have long preferred to distribute their programs in object code, viewing it as less vulnerable to reverse engineering than source code. http://www.tht.com/pubs/external/frank/opensource.htm matze El Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 10:06:28AM +0100 matze ha dit: > El Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 09:54:39AM +0100 Javier Sancho Fernandez ha dit: > > > Mensaje citado por matze: > > > > > interpreto que una librer�a es un plug-in, y al linkar contra una > > > librer�a GPL el programa tambi�n debe ser GPL independientemente del > > > tipo de linkaje. > > > > Una librer�a no es un plug-in, un plug-in es un programa a�adido. > > "If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function > calls to each other and share data structures" > > �contra qu� puede linkar un programa que no sea una librer�a? > > > Si fuera cierto lo que dices, programas GPL como Firefox, Thunderbird o > > OpenOffice.org entre otros no podr�an tener versiones para Windows por usar > > librer�as propias de Windows que evidentemente no son GPL. > > > > Esos programas GPL tienen versiones en Windows justamente porque las > > librer�as > > que usan son completamente externas al programa en si, no forman parte del > > programa compilado, son din�micas, por lo que la licencia de las librer�as > > no > > afecta a la licencia del programa. > > no estamos hablando de programas GPL que linkan contra librer�as no > GPL, en este caso como bien dices no hay problema. > > se trata de programas que linkan librer�as GPL y c�mo esto afecta a la > licencia del programa. > > ejemplo pr�ctico, el ya citado caso QT: > > If you wish to use a Qt Open Source Edition, you must contribute all > your source code to the open source community in accordance with the > GPL or the QPL's license terms. > > http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/opensource.html > > > Use the Qt Commercial License to: > > Build software whose source code you wish to keep private. > > http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/licensing.html > > > si fuera el caso que el linkaje contra librer�as din�micas no afecta > a la licencia del programa, se fundir�a el modelo de negocio de > trolltech porque todo el mundo usar�a la versi�n GPL de las QT para > sus aplicaciones privativas. > > matze > -- Nothing is more despicable than respect based on fear (Albert Camus) ( ( ( i ) ) ) http://indymedia.org ( ( ( i ) ) ) .''`. using free software / Debian GNU/Linux | http://debian.org : :' : `. `'` gpg --keyserver keys.indymedia.org --recv-keys B9A88F6F `-
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
