Paul G. Allen wrote:
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.
Ehh, maybe. Remember, gcc and some other stuff like it have specific
exceptions. If this were known to be generally true, then people would
see no need for the LGPL (Library Gnu Public License). The fact that
Stallman doesn't like the LGPL points to the fact that *he* thinks that
linking isn't necessarily exempted.
Linus and the Linux community desperately wish for your position to be
true. Stallman occasionally mumbles otherwise, but seems to realize
that he really doesn't want to say that too loud. Moglen keeps
studiously non-committal.
Neither side really benefits so neither side wants to go to the mat over
this.
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).
X was originally MIT license, BTW. Not GPL. The BSD's seem to have a
whole lot of code not under the GPL. Even if the GPL gets completely
squashed, life goes on.
Proprietary applications are fine with GPL code until you attempt to
sell/distribute. That's when the GPL kicks in.
The lack of lawyers is due to the lack of money rather than soundness of
legal principle.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
