Cant you do something like release mcs under gpl giving special exception to mono's CodeDom implementation thats released under X11?
On Thu, 23 May 2002, Daniel Carrera wrote: > > Yes, but the GPL is not any more "viral" than a license from Microsoft > which limits your ability to use their code (e.g. their shared source > license). > > This is why the GPL is almost never used for libraries. Under Linux, > libraries are usually LGPL or X11. That way linking is allowed. > > Indeed, the FSF recommends that you *not* use the GPL for libraries unless > you are writing a library that has unique functionality, and you want to > give an advantage to free software (that's from their website). > > > I can't think of a single library that has this GPL problem you describe. > > Also, even if you do really breach the GPL (say that you copy GPL code) , > your code isn't GPL'd automatically. No one can do that. Rather, there > is a conflict that has to be resolved. One solution is to simply remove > the GPL code (yes, in the case of linking the issue is more difficult, but > that's precisely why people DON'T release libraries under the GPL). > > Daniel. > > On Thu, 23 May 2002, Brad Wilson wrote: > > > James Michael DuPont wrote: > > > > > I bet you they would say that the System.CodeDOM.* should all be only > > > available under the GPL. > > > > > The FSF might say that you should not support the CodeDOM at all. This is > > > the exact same type of problem that I have with then introspector project. > > > > Yes, there's a much larger problem here that hasn't been addressed. > > > > As a software author, I may not be consciously targeting Mono. After all, > > one of the driving forces behind Mono is to be able to run code that was > > written for Microsoft's .NET implementation unchanged. What if I write code > > that calls CodeDOM? You can't force me to release my code under GPL, just > > because some end user plugged my code into Mono instead of MS .NET. > > > > In general, releasing libraries under GPL is a big problem when those > > libraries are hooked together at runtime instead of compile time, and are > > intended to replace a library released under a non-GPL license. You can't > > realistically prove that the author intended it to be used with your GPL'd > > library. > > > > When people say that the GPL license is "viral", this is precisely the > > problem they mean. > > > > Brad > > > > -- > > Read my web log at http://www.quality.nu/dotnetguy/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list > _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
