On 08/dic/08, at 14:42, Jaroslav Hajek wrote: > The package must be GPLed, no question. The original library, > certainly not. Or I must be missing something important. If my > software A links to a library B and to Octave, the A is a derivative > work of both B and of Octave, but certainly that does not make B a > derivative work of Octave! If the license of B does not prohibit > GPL-licensed derivative works, everything is OK. > I think the situation is no different from, say, MinGW linking to > Windows API.
I do not understand this matter in full, but there is indeed a difference to the case Jaroslav refers to. GPLv3 makes a specific distinction for the case when a program is linking to non-free libraries that are "system libraries". I would recommend Fabio to read: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs and maybe ask for more advice on FSF mailing lists before distributing his code. c. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
