Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software

[Alexander Cline]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

The thing is, you shouldn't forget that the GPL is intended as a 
"viral" license. I would agree that linking a library is within the 
realm of the law, but my suggestion is to just avoid most of the legal 
obfuscation here and just ask the maintainer of whatever library you 
are using how he feels about you linking it in proprietary software.

============
This message was signed with GNU Privacy Guard, available at 
http://www.gpg.org

On Mar 12, 2005, at 22:06, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

> Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> [...]
> > You see, there's no mention of POSIX or "being needed to make
> > the program work". I think one can reasonably say that a statically
> > linked executable is covered by "any other form in which a work
> > may be recast, transformed or adapted" as far as its components
> > are concerned.
>
> Bzzt. According to the FSF, "static linking creates a derivative work
> through textual copying". By that silly logic, even if you have
> permission to reproduce something, you just can't prepare compilations
> (hint: newspapers, catalogs, etc.) unless you also have permission to
> prepare derivative works.
>
> regards,
> alexander.
> _______________________________________________
> Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
> Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)

iEYEARECAAYFAkIzxOUACgkQt65ZG5ykqBLokwCcDpgebLLDGQgdm7rQpbMI74CE
pgIAn07UiiQ7xhEbUgSWzmj1pFYIqVni
=JuCz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----