[ILUG] GPL clarification.

[Rory Browne]

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:38:06 +0100, Bryan O'Donoghue <typedef at eircom.net> wrote:
> I download glibc and change some source. I redistribute this code
> subsequently (for money or otherwise).
> 
> As I understand the GPL (and I'd rather not get into a litigious
> hypothetical or quagmire of quotes from the GPL), I must make the source
> code for the _modifications_ also available to whoever I distribute the
> code to, under the GPL.

glibc is licensed under the Lgpl (emphasis on first 'L'). The LGPL is
different from the ordinary GPL, in that propriatory programs are
allowed to dynamicly link to it.

If you make a change to the library, then you may release your changes
only under the terms of the GPL(or LGPL if you perfer)

Basicly if you modify and redistribute glibc, then you'll have to
redistribute your source code. If you write a new library/program that
dynamicly links to glibc(or any other LGPL code) then you don't. For
the situation you described, you've caught the GPL virus, and will
have to redistribute your code, either under the GPL, or
preferably(for compatability with the existing glibc), the LGPL.




> The following statement hasn't been tested in court to my knowledge :
> 
> If I link (with ld or similar) my propiatery code, to GPL code, I am not
> bound in any way to make my source code GPL.

The above statment, I believe confuses the GPL with the LGPL.

GPL = If you use our code(at all), then you must release your own under the GPL.
LGPL = If you actually change our code, then you must L/GPL your
change. If however all you do is dynamicly link to our code, then you
can use any license you want.

The GPL has been validated by the community, including IBM's lawyers,
when using it to fight SCO. I wouldn't particularly worry about
violating the spirit, but not the letter, since(with the exception of
the ASP loophole), the letter accurately reflects the spirit.


Legal Crap:
The argument that the GPL cannot prevent you from releaseing your code
under a propriatory license, whilst true, is counter intuitive. The
GPL prevents you from using GPL software in propriatory licensed
products, which indirectly, if not directly, allows the GPL to prevent
you from licensing your code propriatoraly. This is of course only if
you actually use(or link to) GPL Code.

This also applies to the LGPL, unless you only dynamicly link.


Rory

> 
> Is this an accurate statement?
> 
> Note:
> 
> Personally, I'd rather GPL the whole thing, but, as most of us
> understand, people with this sort of opinion are a minority and not a
> powerful minority, in most companies.
> 
> In fact I view linking to GPL code and not GPLing the resulting binary
> as violating the spirit if not the letter of the GPL, but, that's not
> going to hold water, in legalese.
> 
> In brief, are the above statements before "Note" essentially true ? I
> believe that to be the case, and would appreciate if someone can point
> out a flaw, or offer some meaningful modification, of that which
> precedes "Note"
> --
> Irish Linux Users' Group
> http://www.linux.ie/mailman/listinfo/ilug/