Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
>>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?
>>
>
>This would mean exactly that IF the GNU C libs were licensed under the GPL, but they
>are not. They are licensed under the LGPL (the GNU Lesser Public License, a.k.a the
>GNU Library Public License) which does allow linking (without cosidering the linked
>work as "derived") and was made for exactly these cases.
>
>So we are both right ;-)
>
>Gilad.
>
Actually, and I am far from being sure about it, I think that glibc is
licensed under the GPL, with a specific clause that says that programs
linked against it are excluded from this license. The LGPL is not
something RMS seems to like any more ;)
Shachar
=================================================================
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]
