On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:00:38 +0200 (CEST) Johannes Meixner <jsmeix at suse.de> wrote:
> As far as I see, it seems to be allowed from the legal point > of view to have free software that uses non-free libraries > because they only say that the program won't be fully usable > or not usable at all in a free environment but they don't > say it violates the GPL. correct. > But what does "If it depends on a non-free library to run at all, > it cannot be part of a free operating system such as GNU" mean? > > Is "cannot be part of GNU" meant as a license violation or > just that it cannot be included in a "free operating system" > simply because it is useless? I think it mean it would be included in debian non-free rather than main, for example. or something like that. > But why can't there be a program in a "free operating system" > which requires a proprietary library which checks if the > library file is there before it dlopens it and if the library > file is not installed, it shows a message where to get it > (e.g. where to download it - or perhaps it even runs a > download user GUI with appropriate license information). I think this is a philosophical thing. given that such program would probably be distributed via the manufacturer's website rather than via a distro, I'd say we don't have to care. > They even say: > --------------------------------------------------------------- > If the program is already written using the non-free library, > perhaps it is too late to change the decision. You may as well > release the program as it stands, rather than not release it. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > This seems to indicate that free software that uses non-free > libraries is in compliance with the GPL from the legal point > of view. Yes, it is, as long as the author(s) explicitly allows that. -- Best regards, Alessandro Zummo, Tower Technologies - Torino, Italy http://www.towertech.it
