An interesting exception is the Linux kernel itself. Although this is
GPL, it has been accepted (by most) that isolating your code in a module
allows you to keep code proprietary.
Regards, Stuart
Norm Dresner wrote:
>
> I concur. GPL requires complete disclosure of source code; LGPL allows you
> to keep trade secrets.
>
> Norm
>
> At 02:45 PM 3/11/2000 +0100, you wrote:
> >Dresner, Norman A. writes:
> > > Based on a layman's reading of the LGPL, it's required to release source
> > > code for any LGPL-software that you modify; you can simply provide URL's
> > > pointing to the source of unmodified LGPL-code. It is not required
> that you
> > > release source code for any of your own programs that are distributed in
> > > binary form.
> > >
> > > If the (L)GPL code you incorporate is linked into the binary, then the
> > > preceding paragraph applies separately to the linked-libraries and your
> own
> > > code.
> >
> >Iy I understand these licenses correctly, you can link against LGPL'ed
> >code and keep your program closed - only the source of the library
> >needs to be distributed (v.s.).
> >
> >With GPL it is differentm though: If you link to GPL'ed code, the
> >whole program is covered by GPL ! (That's why LGPL was put into life.)
> >
> >Jochen
-- [rtl] ---
To unsubscribe:
echo "unsubscribe rtl" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR
echo "unsubscribe rtl <Your_email>" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
For more information on Real-Time Linux see:
http://www.rtlinux.org/~rtlinux/
