On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Lourens Veen wrote: >> I tend to believe this but can you please let me know where this >> is stated in the GPLv2 license text (I mean the part about making >> restrictions to the license). I'm assuming here that you are >> quiet familiar with this topic so that it is easy for you to find >> it. I already scanned the license text but could not find >> something matching. >> >> The libedc_ecc code is held in a library which gets statically >> linked to the cdrdao executable. The library is not available as >> a separate package so that the cdrdao sources ship with the >> libedc_ecc sources. The libedc_ecc sources are strictly separated >> from the remaining cdrdao sources. Does this count as linking GPL >> incompatible code in? > >Well, as you say it gets statically linked in. So yes, that counts >as linking the code in. Since you can't take out libedc_ecc and use >it in another program, its license is clearly not GPL-compatible. >This means that if cdrdao is published under the GPL, linking them >is against the cdrdao license.
I believe that is fairly accurate. >However, if you publish something under a modified GPL, ie one >without the "viral" component, then as far as I can see it would be >possible. This would however change the license terms for the rest >of cdrdao as well (it would effectively turn into an LGPL license I >think). The thing that sucks about that, is that to change the cdrdao license would require that everyone who has ever contributed GPL code to the project, agree to the license change, or have previously agreed to assign all copyright ownership of the contributed code to the original author. That's a good thing or a bad thing depending on your viewpoint. Some people view it as a bad point, because even if you write a program and GPL it, you cannot legally change the license on your own code, or multiple license it, unless all code contributors have agreed to the relicense/multi-license, or have assigned their copyright completely to you. Others view it as a good thing, because if you GPL a program, and then allow many contributors to contribute, if they decide to keep their copyright for any patches, then what happens is the more contributors that have contributed to the code, the more impossible it is to ever change the license away from the GPL. In this manner, the GPL is self-protecting, in order to protect software freedom, by not allowing license change. Others however such as Microsoft, view this as "viral licensing", because once you've done it, it can be difficult, if not impossible to ever change the license of a software project that is GPL'd. The Linux kernel for example probably has 5000 or more contributors. I doubt it'll ever change licenses. ;o) Anyway... hopefully an amiable solution comes up that everyone thinks is cool. cdrdao is one of those must-have applications, and since we ship it [doesn't everyone? ;o) ], any potential GPL related licensing isses scare me. ;o) Thanks, TTYL -- Mike A. Harris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
