On Fri, 31 May 2002 09:06:05 +1000 Wienand Ian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >so if I develop some application on linux and compile with gcc and use > >standard header files/libs (eg. glib) then that will be linked into > >my binary I produce. > > Dynamically linking libraries/headers is not considered as making your > program fall under the GPL. No true. If those libraries are released under the GPL then the program must fall under the GPL. See my 20 second post on the different rules applying to the GPL and LGPL libraries. > However, the rules are not hard and fast and The rules are hard and fast. They are also very easy to understand. <snip> > But dynamically linking to standard > libraries would not be included. See : > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html That FAQ says nothing of the sort. If you link against GPL libraries (dynamically or statically) your code must be released under the GPL or a GPL compatible license. In fact this point : http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL directly contradicts your assertion. Your assertion would be correct if you specified LGPL libraries. > Compiling with gcc infers no requirement to license under the GPL. That at least is correct. Erik (who finds this license stuff really boring but does like to see incorrect information propagated) -- +-----------------------------------------------------------+ Erik de Castro Lopo [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yes it's valid) +-----------------------------------------------------------+ Reporter: "What do you think of Western Civilisation?" M.K. Gandhi: "I think it would be a good idea." -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
