On 31 Jul 2002, Shannon Roddy wrote: > I think I saw an article the other day that stated something to the > effect of "if someone writes software that links against any GPLd shared > objects, then that software must be GPLd also." Any one more > knowledgeable than me on the GPL that can answer this? Would this mean > that M$ would have to build a GUI without using any existing compiled > shared objects in the Linux system? If so, isn't this a tough task?
I don't think this is true, since a lot of companies (Intel, NVidia) release binary-only kernel modules for hardware, without any GPL violations. It is ok to link against GPL software and release your software as binary-only. As long as you do not CHANGE any GPL software. You could even use gcc to develop your module, as long as you don't change the gcc source. Once you change the GPL source, your changes must also be GPL. I've even seen companies GPL only their changes, and use that as an interface for a binary module. However, Xfree86 is licensed under a BSD style license (actually the MIT/X11 license), not GPL. The GPL is much more restrictive than BSD. Microsoft could compile Xfree86 today, and release it closed-source tomorrow as MS Xwindows (trademarks notwithstanding...). They couldn't do this with KDE or Gnome, as i think those are GPL. I'm no licensing expert though...if someone can clarify further, please do! -Ray -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ray DeJean http://www.r-a-y.org Systems Engineer Southeastern Louisiana University IBM Certified Specialist AIX Administration, AIX Support =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
