Hi, On Sunday 26 July 2009 09:14:25 Sampo Savolainen wrote: > On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 01:20 +0200, Arnold Krille wrote: > > On Sunday 26 July 2009 00:14:45 Sampo Savolainen wrote: > > > The idea behind GPL is that if someone else modifies the code and > > > redistributes this work, he must provide the code (under the same > > > license) for anyone receiving the software. That is the point of the > > > license. > > The main point I remembered from the last thread with "Impro-Visor" in > > the title: It uses gpl software itself. Which means that it has to > > publish the modifications of that part at least. > True, if they have done any modifications to that "external" part. If > it's only using it (jmusic?) as a library, the license of the library > shouldn't affect the main software. But this has always been a hot topic > with GPL: how to link dynamic / static and how does linking affect the > license of the linkee. <snip> > Are you assuming the whole of Impro-visor is subject to GPL as it has > violated the GPL of jmusic?
There is a nice page on the fsf website explaining the differences between gpl and lgpl for libraries. The basic essence (as far as I understand it) is: If you want all apps using your lib to be gpl (or free) use gpl for your lib. If you want more spread against competitors and thus allow closed-source development using your lib, use lgpl. So the fact that Improvisor uses (and ships!) the gpl-ed jmusic, this makes improvisor gpl. Not providing the source for improvisor (not even upon request) is a violation of the gpl. Everyone has the right to complain about that, the jmusic guys even have the right to sue against this. Have fun, Arnold
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
