This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: GPL violation ?
- From: "Georgios Petasis" <petasis at iit dot demokritos dot gr>
- To: <chrish at cryptocard dot com>, <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 00:35:11 +0300
- Subject: Re: GPL violation ?
- References: <20040505182418.R31761@unsane.co.uk> <c7b9d5$f64$1@sea.gmane.org> <013101c432c9$dc07cad0$0100a8c0@aias> <40992E79.5020305@cryptocard.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Herborth" <chrish@cryptocard.com>
To: "Georgios Petasis" <petasis@iit.demokritos.gr>
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: GPL violation ?
> Georgios Petasis wrote:
>
> >>Including GPL'd code in a project as a shared library/DLL is just
peachy;
> >>GPL requires the end-user to be able to replace/upgrade the GPL'd hunk
> >>without intervention.
> >
> > Are you sure the above is correct? I think that LGPL offers this
ability.
> > I think GPL says that the whole application that uses a GPL lib must be
> > distributed under GPL as well.
>
> Nope, that's a common misperception that a lot of Open Source folks aren't
> too keen to clear up, possibly because it suits their desire for all
> software to be "free" (by their definition).
>
> Python isn't GPL'd and yet it links against a GPL'd library namely
> libreadline. The only thing rms had to say was "please make the Python
> license more compatible with the GPL", since it originally had a BSD-link
> clause in it requiring you to give credit to the Python developers. That
> has since disappeared, but it's still not under GPL.
I still cannot understand :-) In this case, I really think that python will
violate the GPL
if they distribute a binary that uses readline :-) I think this is crearly
stated at:
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem
You can include GPL software in a non-GPL application only if the GPL
program is used as a separate application. If you link with it, you have to
use GPL
on the whole application and thats why libc is released under LGPL and not
GPL.
I find also relevant this:
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLPluginsInNF
>
> Here's a quote from the OpenOffice.org FAQ: "The LGPL has all of the
> restrictions of the GPL except that you may use the code at compile-time
> without the derivative work becoming a GPL work. This allows the use of
the
> code in proprietary works."
Yes, but I think that the FSF FAQ may be more accurate than open office FAQ
:-)
>
> Using headers doesn't count as "making a derivative work", and the
consensus
> is that using a shared library is just like loading a program into an OS
at
> runtime (and on some operating systems, it's exactly the same process
> internally). Nobody says Solaris has to be GPL'd because it can run
EMACS,
> and nobody can say an application needs to be GPL'd because it has a GPL'd
> shared library associated with it.
I think you are confusing the fact that GPL allows interaction with non-GPL
stuff only when the two things can be viewed as two separate programs.
An editor is a separate program than the os, but linking a library makes a
single program in most situations...
George
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/