[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: making a non-GPLed module
- To: Oded Arbel <oded(at-nospam)geek.co.il>
- Subject: Re: making a non-GPLed module
- From: <frodo(at-nospam)sharat.co.il>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 01:50:36 +0200 (IST)
- cc: Linux-IL Mailing List <linux-il(at-nospam)linux.org.il>
- Delivered-To: linux.org.il-linux-il@linux.org.il
- In-Reply-To: <07ca01c17845$6c05a3b0$0500a8c0@sunflower>
- Sender: linux-il-bounce(at-nospam)cs.huji.ac.il
OA>> If your binary that links against GPLed code (be it dynamic or
OA>> static "linking") does anything interesting and useful w/o using
OA>> the GPLed code (in your example - reading and composing mail),
OA>> then it is _not_ a derived work of the GPLed code.
On my experience (based on observing some conversations with
Powers-That-Be in GPL) it is not exactly what they think. The example
pretty closely matches the case in question (no, it wasn't the mail
client, but the relation between main program and GPL-related part was
pretty close) and still it was alleged that the code in question doesn't
agree with GPL. Direct quote:
That you don't distribute binaries does not change the fact that your
source code is designed to include <GPLed library> in the program. You
cannot do that, <...> your license is incompatible with the GPL.
Note: code itself has no GPLed part and is not distributing any GPLed bit.
But the fact is is "designed to include" (meaning here "link against")
GPLed software - makes it bad.
--
frodo@sharat.co.il \/ There shall be counsels taken
Stanislav Malyshev /\ Stronger than Morgul-spells
phone +972-3-9316425 /\ JRRT LotR.
whois:!SM8333
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to linux-il-request@linux.org.il with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail linux-il-request@linux.org.il