[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GPL question
From: |
Alfred M. Szmidt |
Subject: |
Re: GPL question |
Date: |
Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:57:10 +0200 (CEST) |
> > (1) Can I dynamically link my application with free libraries
> > already present on the target system, even if they're GPL'ed?
> > (specifically, libbfd, part of binutils, I believe; and gdbm)
>
> Not without first consulting a good copyright lawyer experienced in Free
> Software law. The FSF says that what you propose to do would infringe
> their copyrights. Perhaps you could be a teat case.
I am mighty confused now. Are you saying that what I'm planning to
do is not possible?
Correct, you cannot link non-free software with a GPL library.
If not, why?
The end result contains code from a GPL program, and the GPL states
that the whole work has to be licensed under the same terms.
>From the GNU GPL FAQ:
| I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary
| system. Can I do this?
| You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary
| system. The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to
| copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you
| could incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system,
| it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software
| non-free too.
| A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended
| version of that program. The GPL says that any extended version
| of the program must be released under the GPL if it is released
| at all. This is for two reasons: to make sure that users who get
| the software get the freedom they should have, and to encourage
| people to give back improvements that they make.
| However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered
| software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly,
| you must make sure that the free and non-free programs
| communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way
| that would make them effectively a single program.
| The difference between this and "incorporating" the GPL-covered
| software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The
| substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so
| that they become effectively two parts of one program, then you
| can't treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to
| cover the whole thing.
| If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and
| the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat
| them as two separate programs--but you have to do it
| properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe what
| you are doing. Why do we care about this? Because we want to
| make sure the users clearly understand the free status of the
| GPL-covered software in the collection.
| If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it
| "part of" a system that users know is partly proprietary, users
| might be uncertain of their rights regarding the GPL-covered
| software. But if they know that what they have received is a
| free program plus another program, side by side, their rights
| will be clear.
- GPL question, Mike Cox, 2007/10/11
- Re: GPL question, John Hasler, 2007/10/10
- Re: GPL question, mike3, 2007/10/11
- Re: GPL question, Mike Cox, 2007/10/11
- Re: GPL question,
Alfred M. Szmidt <=
- Message not available
- Re: GPL question, rjack, 2007/10/12
- Message not available
- Re: GPL question, Mike Cox, 2007/10/12
- Re: GPL question, rjack, 2007/10/12
- Re: GPL question, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2007/10/12
- Re: GPL question, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2007/10/13
- Message not available
- Re: GPL question, mike3, 2007/10/13
- Re: GPL question, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2007/10/13
- Re: GPL question, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2007/10/13
- Message not available
- Re: GPL question, mike3, 2007/10/13
- Re: GPL question, John Hasler, 2007/10/13