begin quoting Paul G. Allen as of Wed, May 02, 2007 at 08:55:21AM -0700: > On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 18:04 -0500, Gabriel Sechan wrote: > > > > > > Umm, isn't QT already GPL? How much better do you want than that? > > > > Oh, you want to make proprietary code? Too bad, so sad, I couldn't care > > less. I consider that an additional benefit of QT over GTK. Write your > > own windowing library, don't expect to sponge off the open source movement.
I'll just stick with Java, if it's all the same to you, thanks. > Just because a library is GPL doesn't mean you can't make proprietary > code that uses said library. The question is one of design and linking. > Statically link a GPL library into your code, and your code is a > derivative work and falls under the GPL. Make the portion that requires > the GPL library an optional GPL module, and you're good to go. The libc stuff has a disclaimer allowing linking without imposing the GPL on linked code, but I don't see anywhere in the GPLv2 license where it distinguishes between statically linking and dynamically linking. I see: This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General Public License instead of this License. Personally, I think that dynamic linking should not be subject to license agreements -- I should be able to replace any shared library with any other shared library that accomplishes my goals as I desire. Of course, if that's enshrined in law in somewhere like .ca.us (that isn't adverse to saying that some limitations Just Don't Apply, even if you've signed a contract, e.g., expirations on gift certificates) then I may have no license to use GPL software at all.... > If this > were not the case, then every application that runs on Linux, or uses X, > or uses any number of other things that are GPL would be GPL and there > would be more lawsuits than we have lawyers (or no proprietary > applications for use with GPL code). There are exemptions for certain pieces of fundamental code, like the support libraries used by gcc. > Really, there are way too many people with misconceptions about the GPL. That indicates a flaw in the GPL. -- Complexity is the enemy. Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
