Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:27:20AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Måns Rullgård:
>
> > The phrase "running the Program" is not directly applicable to a
> > library, so we have to assume that for libraries, this translates into
> > using the library, i.e. causing its code to be run, typically by
> > running a program that uses the library. This act being unrestricted
> > per the quoted paragraph, it follows that any program can link with a
> > GPL library, no matter what license that program has.
>
> This only supports the widely held belief that you can do what you
> want with GPLed software inside your own four walls, without thinking
> too much about copyright issues. (I think this is quite an important
> freedom!)
Indeed, the GPL only applies to redistribution, this is a widely known fact.
And you only have to redistribut the source to the ones you are giving the
binaries to, not the world at large.
> Usually, the interesting question is if you are permitted to
> distribute the linked program, and if dynamic linking makes a
> difference.
nope, the only difference between dynamic linking and static linking is if you
use the LGPL. I am told that also the distribution of something in the sole
intent of being linked with GPL code, is already problematic, but that is up
to interpretation i guess.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: