Hi
> Just one small clarification: GNUstep is LGPL (I am not a lawyer, none of > this is legal advice). This means that you must: > > Yes, I know. Sorry, it was an error in writing. - provide your customers with the sources for any changes that you make to > the GNUstep libraries (obviously, we'd rather you pushed them upstream, but > that's not a requirement) > > That's the plan. > > You are not, however, required to publish the code for anything that > merely links against GNUstep, or uses the GNUstep headers. Specifically, > inline functions and macros from GNUstep headers do not 'taint' your binary. > > Yeah, that's were we hope to be able to put our proprietary code. > More pragmatically, from my experience on the FreeBSD Core Team[2], we > have seen several companies learn that maintaining a proprietary fork of an > open source project is often much more expensive than any loss of > competitive advantage from releasing their changes. > > Our goal is to release as much as we can to contribute to the GNUstep developer community. > David > > [1] Note: There are several cases of big companies apparently violating > this requirement of the LGPL. One of the most prominent is Apple with > WebKit on iOS, where they do not allow iDevice owners to relink mobile > Safari against a custom WebKit. To my knowledge, this has never been > tested in court in any jurisdiction. > I can imaging that allowing this would mean serious security risks... Interesting case however. > > [2] Totally off-topic, but you didn't say what kernel / userland you were > planning on putting under GNUstep. We have a very nice one, and it is the > one where Clang and libobjc2 receive the most testing... > > By "we", do you mean FreeBSD? Actually we are considering FreeBSD 10. -- Johannes Lundberg BRILLIANTSERVICE CO., LTD. <http://www.brilliantservice.co.jp>
_______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
