> It seems like not many people know about the licensing problem that we > have between GPLv2 and LGPLv3 (I didn't even know the problem existed > until a month ago), so here is a bit of an explanation of the problem: > > Briefly, the GPLv2 says (among other things) that if you link against a > library, the complete work has to be redistributable under the terms of > the GPLv2, if you want to redistribute it.
From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html: > I'm writing a Windows application with Microsoft Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) > and I will be releasing it under the GPL. Is dynamically linking my program > with the Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) run-time library permitted under the > GPL? > > The GPL permits this because that run-time library normally accompanies > the compiler or interpreter you are using. The run-time libraries here are > “System Libraries” as GPLv3 defines them, and as such they are not considered > part of the Corresponding Source. GPLv2 has a similar exception in section 3. It seems that GNUstep core falls exactly under the same exceptions; libobjc, gnustep-base and gnustep-gui are the run-time "system libraries" for Objective-C on a GNU system. It's still a good idea to update the GPL/LGPL versions of all software though. :-) Thanks _______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
