Re: Is this a flagrant GPL violation?

From: Kyler Laird (Kyler_at_news.Lairds.org)
Date: 12/11/03


Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:19:55 GMT

Thank you for all of the informative responses. Bottom line - yes,
I was missing something. Mostly I was ignoring the distinction
between GPL and LGPL.

I had just been reading a thread about binary kernel modules and I
was thinking in terms of some of the arguments given there about
the use of APIs. I also didn't realized that GCC could be used to
compile proprietary code. These aren't things that had been a
concern to me.

I appreciate the education.

--kyler



Relevant Pages

  • Re: license question?
    ... >> You can include a LGPL library in your commercial prduct, ... >> include any full GPL product in an application that is not itself full GPL ... The problem with linking in the GPL is that parts of the library are ... violation of the license. ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • Re: license question?
    ... >> You can include a LGPL library in your commercial prduct, ... >> include any full GPL product in an application that is not itself full GPL ... The problem with linking in the GPL is that parts of the library are ... violation of the license. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: [OT] Fun with walking package licenses
    ... It is only as accurate as the license given in the ... glib2-2.6.6 LGPL ... even if it links to GPL software. ... echo "" ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Kernel header files in applications and GPL issues
    ... -> fg> GPL?" ... -> the GPL _OR_ the LGPL, then your only choice is to find a libc somewhere ... You may license it any way that you like as long as ... Syscalls go into the kernel. ...
    (comp.os.linux.development.apps)
  • Re: GPL violation by CorAccess?
    ... > As long as they do not statically link against LGPL code and as ... > long as they do not link dynamically agaist GPL code. ... I believe that the LGPL allows for static linking as well. ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
    (Linux-Kernel)