[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shaya Potter) wrote on 17.05.00 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 17 May 2000, Daniel Quinlan wrote: > > > Maurizio De Cecco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > My point is: suppose i implement a system where *all* the libraries > > > are GPL, and not LGPL, would that implementation be non standard > > > compliant *because* of the licence ? > > > > Well, let's say there is a LSB definition for "libfoo". Someone writes > > a non-free non-GPL commercial proprietary application and dynamically > > links it against the LGPL implementation of libfoo. If someone else > > then implements a GPL version of libfoo, it would not imply that the > > application is now violating the GPL because it was originally linked > > against the LGPL version. > > > > My question is: if you (as a system administrator or user) installed the > > application on a system that used the GPL version of libfoo instead of > > the LGPL version, would you be violating the GPL? > > It's questionable. Nope. The GPL says that unless you distribute, you can do what you want. The above SA or user doesn't distribute, therefore the GPL doesn't require anything. This is a pretty important point: for inhouse usage, you can link readline with Microsoft Word without legal problems. You just can't give it away. MfG Kai
