On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 10:09:50PM +0200, Cuinet Jérôme wrote: > I'm curious and I have seen the GNU libc license, and it's obviously GPL.
It's not GPL, it's LGPL. "Released under the GNU Lesser General Public License, glibc is free software." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_C_Library > According to this thread, if I have well understood the GPL, all software > linked with glibc are licensed under GPL ? If glibc was GPL, yes. > I had seen > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#PortProgramToGL wich > suggest that a lib such as glibc is under LGPL. But the license text of > glibc is well the GPL, with the last paragraph : "This General Public > License does not permit incorporating your program into > proprietary programs." Where are you getting the license text of glibc that it says this? I can't find a license file which indicates this. > > What I have missed ? > > > Jérôme > ----- Original Message ----- From: "P Kishor" <punk.k...@gmail.com> > To: "OSGeo Discussions" <discuss@lists.osgeo.org> > Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 7:19 PM > Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries > > > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Christopher Schmidt > <crschm...@crschmidt.net> wrote: >> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 11:55:47AM -0500, P Kishor wrote: > .. >>> >>> Thanks Dan (and Christopher and others), I see the distinction now >>> between GPL and LGPL. However, I am reading the actual GPL text and >>> its extensive FAQ, instead of Wikipedia's interpretation of it, to try >>> and sift through all the variations and exceptions to better >>> understand this now. Hopefully I will come out better informed from >>> this process. In the meantime, the distinction that you point out >>> between GPL and LGPL makes sense. >> >> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL >> >> "The combination itself is then available under those GPL versions." >> > .. > > This actually gets even more clear as mud... from the para above the > link provided above, we have the following -- > > ---- > Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered > plug-in? > > It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. For instance, if > the program uses only simple fork and exec to invoke and communicate > with plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license > of the plug-in makes no requirements about the main program. > > If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function > calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a > single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main > program and the plug-ins. In order to use the GPL-covered plug-ins, > the main program must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible > free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed > when the main program is distributed for use with these plug-ins. > > If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication > between them is limited to invoking the ‘main’ function of the plug-in > with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline > case. > > Using shared memory to communicate with complex data structures is > pretty much equivalent to dynamic linking. > ---- > > So, the above question is possibly closer in spirit to the OP that > started this thread. Can I create a commercial (and ostensibly closed > source, although that closed-source-ness of the program was not asked > for by the OP) program with "LGPL GIS SDK or library". The answer > would be yes. But, the answer would be yes with GPL as well, but then > we would get into whether or not the result would be open or closed > source, and what the license of the result would be. Yes, I muddied > the issue a bit by using the example of ShapeLib, but, perhaps that is > a good thing, because it does illustrate the need for thinking it > through carefully... what are we doing with the GPL program? Are we > linking? Are we doing a "simple fork and exec"? Do we have some other > borderline case? > > Once again, the clearest advice would be -- if you think you have the > possibility of creating a business that is based on software worth > protecting its source, and yet want to use other free software, pony > up some cash up-front and get a real lawyer to advice you. Don't > listen to folks on mailing lists or read wikipedia articles... invest > in a lawyer. Otherwise, take the easy way out and stay free. > > I actually quite like GPL's philosophy -- it doesn't restrict at all > what I do with GPLed software. It only stops me from restricting > others. > > Puneet. > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Christopher Schmidt Web Developer _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss