On Oct 10, 5:44 pm, Mike Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am currently developing a closed source application that
> is going to be used on Linux and Solaris. Question is,
>
> (1) Can I dynamically link my application with free libraries
> already present on the target system, even if they're GPL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>I am not a lawyer, so I can only offer a "common sense" opinion:
>>
>> Which sadly, is not much common sense.
>
> I see GNU likes civilized discourse.
Alfred does not represent or speak for "GNU".
-Miles
--
/\ /\
(^.^)
(")")
*This is the cute kitty virus, please
I am not a lawyer, so I can only offer a "common sense" opinion:
Which sadly, is not much common sense.
When you choose dynamic linking, you are not including the library,
but only its interface in your product. The users of your product
may or may not opt to use it with the library i
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
rjack wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
I hope than Monsoon folks will take an opportunity to trash Moglen's
nonsensical GNU legal theory myths in federal court.
The GPL myth gives rise to another problem.
That problem is "legal standing". A license such as the GP
jacob navia wrote:
[...]
> Does that mean that if I do NOT distribute libbfd.a
> I can still tell the linux users to download it and
> install it for using my compiler system?
In the GNU Republic, that's ten years in prison. Note that you still
have choice: GPL your compiler system or go to priso
On Oct 19, 9:47 am, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am not a lawyer, so I can only offer a "common sense" opinion:
>
> Which sadly, is not much common sense.
I see GNU likes civilized discourse.
>When you choose dynamic linking, you are not including the library,
>bu
