Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <027701c432e8$dd7cc680$0100a8c0@aias>
From: "Georgios Petasis" <petasis AT iit DOT demokritos DOT gr>
To: <chrish AT cryptocard DOT com>, <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References: <20040505182418 DOT R31761 AT unsane DOT co DOT uk> <c7b9d5$f64$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> <013101c432c9$dc07cad0$0100a8c0 AT aias> <40992E79 DOT 5020305 AT cryptocard DOT com>
Subject: Re: GPL violation ?
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 00:35:11 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.3.3(snapshot 20020312) (aperion)
X-IsSubscribed: yes


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chris Herborth" <chrish AT cryptocard DOT com>
To: "Georgios Petasis" <petasis AT iit DOT demokritos DOT gr>
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: GPL violation ?


> Georgios Petasis wrote:
>
> >>Including GPL'd code in a project as a shared library/DLL is just
peachy;
> >>GPL requires the end-user to be able to replace/upgrade the GPL'd hunk
> >>without intervention.
> >
> > Are you sure the above is correct? I think that LGPL offers this
ability.
> > I think GPL says that the whole application that uses a GPL lib must be
> > distributed under GPL as well.
>
> Nope, that's a common misperception that a lot of Open Source folks aren't
> too keen to clear up, possibly because it suits their desire for all
> software to be "free" (by their definition).
>
> Python isn't GPL'd and yet it links against a GPL'd library namely
> libreadline.  The only thing rms had to say was "please make the Python
> license more compatible with the GPL", since it originally had a BSD-link
> clause in it requiring you to give credit to the Python developers.  That
> has since disappeared, but it's still not under GPL.

I still cannot understand :-) In this case, I really think that python will
violate the GPL
if they distribute a binary that uses readline :-) I think this is crearly
stated at:
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem

You can include GPL software in a non-GPL application only if the GPL
program is used as a separate application. If you link with it, you have to
use GPL
on the whole application and thats why libc is released under LGPL and not
GPL.
I find also relevant this:
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLPluginsInNF

>
> Here's a quote from the OpenOffice.org FAQ: "The LGPL has all of the
> restrictions of the GPL except that you may use the code at compile-time
> without the derivative work becoming a GPL work. This allows the use of
the
> code in proprietary works."
Yes, but I think that the FSF FAQ may be more accurate than open office FAQ
:-)

>
> Using headers doesn't count as "making a derivative work", and the
consensus
> is that using a shared library is just like loading a program into an OS
at
> runtime (and on some operating systems, it's exactly the same process
> internally).  Nobody says Solaris has to be GPL'd because it can run
EMACS,
> and nobody can say an application needs to be GPL'd because it has a GPL'd
> shared library associated with it.

I think you are confusing the fact that GPL allows interaction with non-GPL
stuff only when the two things can be viewed as two separate programs.
An editor is a separate program than the os, but linking a library makes a
single program in most situations...

George



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/