Victor wrote:
I am curious as to how you derived this conclusion that linking against GPL shared libraries makes your application GPL as well?
From the GPL faqs: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL
If that's the case, shouldn't TiVo's entire application suite be GPL'ed since they link against the GPL licensed stdlib?
As others have mentioned, your premise is flawed; glibc is available under the LGPL, which allows the covered code to be linked to non-GPL'd code:
http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/libc/COPYING.LIB?rev=1.3&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup&cvsroot=glibc
Or what about the NVidia binary kernel modules? Since they link against the GPL kernel libraries to create a binary, shouldn't that binary be GPL?
The general consensus seems to be that the NVidia binary drivers are, in fact, distributed in violation of the GPL, but the kernel hackers are by and large a pragmatic lot who realize that aggressively pursuing that particular violation would do the community more harm than good.
http://kerneltrap.org/node/1735
I think the issue of using and distributing GPL'ed code (i.e., making the Linux kernel part of your app) versus linking to a GPL'ed library is not nearly as clear cut as you described.
Your thoughts are incorrect. - Marc _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
