According to the GPL FAQ *technically* a dynamically linked object still falls under GPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLStaticVsDynamic
However it seems that not everyone agrees on that fundamentalist view: https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366 As far as I know, there has not been any court ruling on such issues, so we are a bit in the gray zone here. In my personal opinion it will be okay if we use the readline library in pil21, since it is a *library* and we are not making a 'derivative' work out of it Regards, Davide On Sun, Nov 22, 2020, 09:30 Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de> wrote: > Hi Tomas, > > > even though pil21 is MIT licensed, the GPL dependency makes the combined > > work GPL licensed > > > > if i understand the raised issue correctly, alex wants the combined work > > to be MIT licensed, which means pil21 cannot depend on GPL software > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 09:08:32AM +0100, Tomas Hlavaty wrote: > > the question is: does pil21 depend on GPL software? if yes, the > > combined work has GPL licence. if not, pil21 has MIT licence. if you > > Yes, I want pil21 as a piece be completely "free", in the spirit of MIT. > > But you focus on the term "depend" / "dependency". > > >From what I underseod so far, the GPL is all about "distributing". > PicoLisp does > *not* distribute any GPLed code (neither source nor binary), but "uses" > what it > finds on the target system at runtime and just *calls* it by creating a > dynamic > link. Am I wrong? > > ☺/ A!ex > > -- > UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe > >
