On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Alexander Gladysh <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, list! > > I see several GPL-ed rocks in the list. > > I'm not an active GPL-hater, but is it a good thing to have them? > > If I understand correctly, if I require GPL-ed module from my program, > it becomes GPL-ed by itself. > > If this is true (I'm not a lawyer), perhaps users should be warned > more explicitly when installing GPL modules? (One option is to print > license name — for any license — when installing the module.)
A GPL linking exception modifies the GNU General Public License (GPL) to create a new, modified license. Such modified licenses enable software projects which provide "library" code, to be "linked to" the programs that use them, without applying the full terms of the GPL to the using program... Without applying the linking exception, code linked with GPL code must be using a GPL-compatible license. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception This means that when you link GPL-compatible code to a GPL-licensed library that does not include the linking exception then the resulting code is GPL-licensed... so you do understand correctly. I work with code that contains non-commercial use restrictions and I really appreciate all the MIT/X licensed libraries in the Lua community, but I've usually checked out the licenses before I run luarocks. Chris _______________________________________________ Luarocks-developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luaforge.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luarocks-developers
