Re: GPL v LGPL for libraries
(Alex Yukhimets) wrote:
> As you noticed, I was talking about the program with released source,
> and even more, releases with *free* license (say, similar to NPL).
> And why do I need encouragment in this case?
Ok, it is true that GPL'd code (not just libraries) limits the way you
can LICENSE programs that make use of that code. It does NOT, however,
limit your USE of the code, merely how you can license it.
This is a known fact, a very old, known fact -- there's no reason to
invoke something new like the NPL, the BSDL is incompatible with the
GPL, and always has been since before Linux existed -- they've have
regularly scheduled flamewars over on gnu.misc.discuss about this for
Again, you ARE free to use a GPL'd library any way you want. You simply
have to license the results under the GPL. If you don't like that,
well, too bad, but it's still not a restriction on your freedom to write
or modify or distribute the code, which is the freedom that Debian is
Chris Waters firstname.lastname@example.org | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or email@example.com | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.