Re: [ba-ohs-talk] More bad news about the GPL License: Fwd: [Gxl] GCC Licencing and XML extracts
To quote http://www.fsf.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
"The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for
libraries. One is the GNU Library GPL; the other is
the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice of license makes a
big difference: using the Library GPL permits use
of the library in proprietary programs; using the
ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for
free programs."
They then go on to call for more GPL non-library
licenses to give advantages ONLY to GPL software... (01)
"Complex data structures", I believe, refers to the
ability to know all about and manipulate the data
separately without any absolute reliance on the GPL'd
or proprietary software. (02)
As for non-GPL software that runs on GPL'd Linux; most
of the libraries are under the LGPL, allowing people
to link to them without the requirement for them to be
GPL... (03)
Hope that makes it clear,
David (04)
3/1/2002 6:38:42 AM, Jack Park
<jackpark@thinkalong.com> wrote: (05)
>I think the plot keeps getting thicker: if my read is
>correct (jump in and correct me if I am wrong),
>connecting to GPL software through a socket means
>your software must be GPL'd as well. A snipped from
>the Stallman quote is "but not when they exchange
>complex data structures."
>
>What is a "complex data structure?"
>
>I wonder if that means that any software that runs on
>the GPL'd Linux must be GPL'd as well.
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>Jack (06)