[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GPL'ed libs -- oil and water?



On Wed, May 10, 2000 at 04:37:22AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2000 at 12:05:06AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > If I write a program that links to a GPL'ed library, what licenses may I use?
> > Am I "stuck" with the GPL?
> 
> No.
> 
> You can use anything that isn't more restrictive than the GPL.  [However,
> as long as your program incorporates GPLed code, distribution of the
> binaries -- or any other form of the whole thing, like the complete
> source -- must happen under GPLed terms.]
> 
> So, you could use the BSD or X licenses for example.  In either of these
> cases the license on the code you would write could become proprietary,
> but until the GPLed code is replaced you couldn't actually have working
> copies of the proprietary code.

Furthermore, it should be noted that if there is a non-GPL'ed library with
the same interface as the GPL'ed library in question, you can even get away
with being more restrictive than the GPL.

This is, for instance, what led to the development of libreadline clones--a
coalition of proprietary authors and GPL opponents have come up with
minimalistic readline clones on at least one (I think two) occassions.

Is there any reason using the GPL on your program strikes you as a bad
move?  (Or does it?)

-- 
G. Branden Robinson            |
Debian GNU/Linux               |    If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws
branden@ecn.purdue.edu         |    will @goH7OjBd7*dnfk=<q4fDj]Kz?.
roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpHRLn0MfHwA.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: