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.
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.
Is this an accurate statement?
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
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!