I've always considered that ambiguity a risk, and chosen not to use GPLed code.
-- Chris Tacke, Embedded MVP OpenNETCF Consulting Giving back to the embedded community http://community.OpenNETCF.com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hi all, > > I'm wondering what the general consensus is on the legitimacy of using > GPL-ed code in a driver for a proprietary operating system, in my > particular case to generate a file system driver for Windows CE. > > I've had a good read of the GPL license and associated FAQs at www.gnu.org > and trawled through various Usenet postings and it seems to me to be a > bit of a grey area. Regardless of how others might view things it is > pretty clear that the opinion of the FSF is that the act of linking to > a GPL-ed program, regardless of whether that linking is static or > dynamic, creates a derived work that must also fall under the GPL > license (and if this not the intent of the copyright holder they > should maybe be using the LGPL instead), however there is a clear > exemption allowing a GPL-ed program to use libraries/ components that > are a standard part of the operating system for which the program is > designed without the OS components falling under the GPL. I'm > wondering whether this exemption could be considered to work in the > other direction, allowing a GPL-ed driver/module/plugin to be used by > a proprietary OS. > > > Thanks for your thoughts, > > Richard Lang. > _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
