Re: Dumb Licensing Questions

[tomas]

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

On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 07:15:04AM +0100, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote:
> On 12/15/2016 08:18 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> > 
> > Wes Frazier writes:
> > 
> > […]
> > For compiled code as well as for interpreted code which uses GPL’ed
> > code, your own code has to be under a GPL-compatible license.
> > 
> > If you ship the different parts together, the resulting *combined work*
> > will be GPL, but your part of the code will stay under the
> > (GPL-compatible) license you selected.
> > […]
> 
> IANAL but on Wikipedia this sounds far from clear:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL#Linking_and_derived_works

That's probably because YANAL.

(sorry, couldn't resist).

It's clear that there are different standpoints. The linking thing (dynamic
or static) hasn't, AFAIK, tested in court. It's quite possible that different
courts reach different conclusions (in the same or different places in the
world). It's even possible (gasp!) that the legal interpretations of things
change over time.

If I were you, I'd just comply with what the FSF proposes, and that is pretty
clear [1]. Any reasons not to comply with that?

Sorry if this sounds a bit grumpy.

regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlheK9wACgkQBcgs9XrR2ka0mwCePUimAFfDpz6tYrPFgCXDUz+x
xWEAn1c8azuXDWsP6sw7JM+yYgtGl7/r
=olUk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----