Shachar Shemesh wrote: > Neil Williams wrote: > >>> If yes, what license would be best ? >> >> There are so many, I wouldn't know where to start. >> > I'll put in my 2 cents, then. I completely agree with your explanation. >> and if you do use the exception, make that clear too as it does have >> implications for those who would modify or distribute your code. >> >> > Actually, the GPL exception was intended precisely so that it doesn't > gravely implicate people using your code. The use of a non-free library, > however, is something that needs to be pointed out clearly. I don't know how it was designed to be, but it sure does "gravely implicate people using your code", at least IMO. One of the great things of free software is that you can modify and redistribute it. Modifying often means combining with (parts of) other programs. "GPL with exception for library X" combined with "GPL" can only result in "GPL", which means the result may no longer be linked to the library. That can mean a lot of extra work to make the program usable again. For that reason, I don't like to use programs which need such an exception (because I like the freedom to modify my code, which is not very effectively available). And of course I don't like to use non-free libraries themselves either, but that was already mentioned as a downside. >>> In the same way, if I wrote a program using java (Sun), could i >>> distribute it under the GPL license ? >> >> That would be the LGPL, if I read the gnu site correctly, but I don't >> use Java at all, so I haven't really looked at that. >> > I think you misread it. The GPL specifically allows you to use libraries > that are part of the development tools. Java clearly is. You are speaking about 3: <quote src="GPL2" section="3"> However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. </quote> A problem I see is that java is not a major component of many operating systems, and therefore not a compiler as mentioned here. Or if the code is only meant to be used on operating systems which do include it, it is not free on others. I could be wrong though. I remember some discussion about Java programs not being allowed to be GPL, because of the technical method they are linked. Anyway, it was all a lot of "IANAL, but", and there wasn't a real conclusion. However, a problem of Java is that the free version of it does not have all the features Sun Java has (in particular the "Swing" library). Therefore the FSF advises not to use Sun Java at all (but only free versions, such as GCJ): http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html Personally, I would not use Java at all for this reason, but if you have invested time in learning it (which I haven't), I can imagine some problems are conceptually easier with it. In that case, use extreme caution. Finally of course, I am not a lawyer either. Thanks, Bas Wijnen -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature