> Hi everyone, > > In light of the recent discussions about the Apple iTunes issue.. > > I think the GNU GPL does not allow distributing an object binary (i.e. closed > source software) that can be linked with a free GPLd (or even LGPLd?) library > to form an executable.. Does that not seem unfair? After all the distributers > are not actually breaking the law by running tainted code but are only > providing the means (tools) for others to do the same easily. So shouldn't > *truly free* software not have this restriction?
GPL/LGPL are not the only *free* licenses out there. BSD/Apache are examples of a much liberal license. Seems like that is what you are looking for :-) The basic logic behind GPL is simple. If you use GPLed software as a base for your projects, you will have to release your software under the GPL. This is the "Viral Clause" of GPL. This helps the developers by keeping their work free and while allowing others to improve upton their work, they are reasonably assured that no one will steal their code. LGPL is more like a special case of GPL for library code which makes the library code behave like GPL, but not any applications that are linked to the code. The BSD license is more like a free for all, where anyone can take the software and create derrivative works and not release the code for it. This type of license is really helpful if you are making software that you basically wan't to give away while being acknowledged as the original source/author. Use Google and you will come up with some nice articles on these licenses, etc ;-) Ambar Roy _______________________________________________ ilugd mailinglist -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
