Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:56:54 -0600 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com>, <davids@webmaster.com>, <chat@freebsd.org> Cc: TM4525@aol.com Subject: RE: GPL vs BSD Licence Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20041029235332.0532be08@localhost> In-Reply-To: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNIEJDEPAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> References: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKGEGBPGAA.davids@webmaster.com> <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNIEJDEPAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 11:48 PM 10/29/2004, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >That is one of the arguments. But, the GPL is concerned with distribution. >I think this has been raised before with them. I think that the scenario >was, if I make a program that dynamically links into GPL, then I distribute >both my program and the GPL code that it links into, do I have to put my >program under GPL? I think their answer was yes - they argued that when >the linking takes place and who links it is immaterial, and that the fact >that your program cannot run without their stuff means that when your code >is running, that your program and their stuff become as a single program. > >This is why they created the LGPL. And then, after Linux was a success and they'd gotten a lock on certain application areas for UNIX-like operating systems (e.g. compilers), they made the LGPL more restrictive and renamed it from the "Library GPL" to the "Lesser GPL." And since the FSF requires all of the "GNU" software to be signed over to it, suddenly the rug is pulled out from under those who were using the software under the less restrictive license. The FSF now recommends that libraries be GPLed, to trap developers. Stallman loves to say, "Gotcha!" --Brett Glass
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6.1.2.0.2.20041029235332.0532be08>