At 3:43 AM -0700 on 7/11/99, Michael Fair wrote:
>Michael:
>I am still failing to see why a standalone would need
>to be under the GPL as well.
Because a standalone is a work combining the stack and the OpenCard engine.
Anything thet combines with the OpenCard engine must be under the GPL if
the engine is under the GPL.
>The standalone is (correct me if I'm wrong) just a smart
>stack loader and script interpreter. As long as the
>executable code that is packaged with the standalone
>is LGPL This shouldn't be a problem.
If the standalone countains an ounce of GPL code, the entire thing must be
under the GPL. The GPL thus spreads like a virus.
>
>Two thoughts come to mind.
>1) Does opensource.org have their version of a basic
> Open Source license (like the GPL only nicer).
There are many opensource licences. I think I prefere the Artistic.
>
>2) How does GCC handle this problem?
> Or is it the conclusion of the lawyers that to be true
> to the license only GPL code can be compiled with
> GCC?
The code can be distributed any way you please: The GPL can't apply to the
code. However, once you link that code with the glibc (which is under the
GPL), the binary must be under the GPL (unless there is a special exception
with glibc, I'm not sure).
