From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve ROBBINS To: Edwin Robert Tisdale Cc: gsl-discuss@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GPL - GSL and derivative work. Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 13:20:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010814120229.O17986@bottom.bic.mni.mcgill.ca> References: <3B793BF6.1C6E2E31@jpl.nasa.gov> X-SW-Source: 2001/msg00389.html On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 07:55:50AM -0700, Edwin Robert Tisdale wrote: > Timothy H. Keitt wrote: > > > These are pretty clearly spelled out at www.gnu.org. > > Short answer: LGPL, linking from closed-source OK.; > > GPL, you have to release the source of the application > > under the GPL to link with a GPL'd library. > > The GPL only prevents you from distributing the GPL'd library > without distributing the application source code. > You can distribute the application object code > without the application source code without violating the GPL > and let users link it into the GPL'd library themselves. This is not true. If your application requires the GPL'd library it is to be considered a "derived work" of the library, and all sources must be shipped with a binary. This is pretty clearly laid out in the text of the GPL, and the GNU web site has further disucssions. In particular, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL If you intend to split legal hairs about what constitutes a "derived work", that is a discussion I do not want to have. Try the newsgroup gnu.misc.discuss. > I don't think that there is any practical way for the FSF > or the library developers to prevent users from doing this. Well, the practicality is a separate question. ;-) But it is beyond question that this is not what authors of GPL'd libraries *intend*. -Steve