Ron Johnson wrote: > On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 14:57, Michael Meskes wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:26:14PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > > > IANAL, but according to my understanding > > > (1) proprietary s/w that dynamically links to "GPL" shared libraries > > > has not broken the GPL. > > > > Sure? My understanding is that it does break GPL. That's why there's an > > LGPL. > > Well, there's this: > http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL > and this: > http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface > http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2000-April/010043.html > > Linus thinks that dynamic linking is ok, RMS doesn't, but gives > an example boilerplate that says how dynamic linking can be ok > w/ the GPL. It's definitely a grey area.
Right, dynamic linking is a case where RMS would like the GPL to spread the the closed-source binary, but I don't think he can legally do that. We do have that issue with our linking in of libreadline. We may adopt libedit someday for that very reason. I researched this a little recently for Joe Conway. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
