Kyle McDonald wrote: > Brian Utterback wrote: >> I hesitate to mention this and if everybody agrees that this is not >> architecturally or otherwise relevant, I'll shut up, but if you >> recall, the GNU readline case (PSARC 2007/188) stalled because GNU >> readline is a library licensed under the GPL rather than the LGPL and >> thus anything linked with it is likewise under the GPL. So, if guile >> links with libguilereadline-v-17.so.17.0.3 (which comes with the guile >> source, but is indeed GPL licensed) then despite what the LICENSE file >> for guile says, it is not in reality licensed under LGPL, it is >> actually bound by the terms of the GPL. So, this presents the same >> problem that readline did, namely that a developer may unknowingly end >> up with a product that is bound by the GPL. Now, if the whole issue >> with readline has been resolved, then great, but I never saw the >> resolution. Has it been resolved? >> >> > I thought that shared libraries resolved this, since the 'linking' was > done at run time by the end user, and not the distributor. The > distributor is, as I understand it the one that is prevented from > linking (and then distributing) GPL and non-GPL code. So static linking > is out, but dynamic linking should be ok, no? > > Is that a too simplistic reading of the license? > > -Kyle
I think this is true for the LGPL, but we are talking about the GPL here. I found the original conversation between the guile developers and Richard Stallman, and the very reason that the separate libguile-readline library was created was that there are some uses of guile that do not use readline and some that do, and they wanted the ability to build it without readline and thus license guile via the LGPL and at the same time be able to build it with readline and have it bound by the GPL. It is clear from the discussion, that those involved believe that when built with libguile-readline, that the resultant binaries are GPL licensed and viral. I found it kind of funny reading the thread because lately it seems that it is inflammatory to call a license "viral", but Stallman and the developers actually say that the GPL "infecting" the programs is exactly their desired outcome. -- blu There are two rules in life: Rule 1- Don't tell people everything you know ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Utterback - Solaris RPE, Sun Microsystems, Inc. Ph:877-259-7345, Em:brian.utterback-at-ess-you-enn-dot-kom
