Actually it is true. as for the glibc conundrum which has buffled so many minds - the answer is simple : glibc is licensed under the LGPL (that as in Library GNU's Public License).
Oded -- Captain Penny's Law: You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool mom. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herouth Maoz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 12:05 PM Subject: Re: making a non-GPLed module > On 2001 November 28 ,Wednesday 11:59, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: > > > > Again, I am no lawyer, but the "official" GNU/FSF standpoint as I > > understand is that the fact that module links against a GPLed work > > (the Linux kernel) means in is considered a "derived work" of the > > Linux kernel and therefor can only be published under the GPL. > > That doesn't sound right to me. Wouldn't it imply that any program > that you write using gcc (and which links against gnu's standard C > library, naturally) must therefore be GPL? > > As far as I know, that particular interpretation has been denied in > the past. > > Herouth > > ================================================================= > To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command > echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
