[ale] Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 15:24:00 -0500

[hirsch at zapmedia.com]

Brian J. Dowd writes:
 > Why, if they just distributed the binary code dynamically linked to the
 > GPL'd libs, would that cause their code to become GPL'd? I think they
 > could do this. I also think they will put out a MSLinux. The kernel
 > would be GPL'd but their binary object code could check to make sure
 > that it was an 'MS Linux' installation. 

I think that the standard interpretation is that the libraries need to
LGPLed.  GPLed libraries can only be linked to GPLed code.  In fact,
RMS made a big point about this a year or two ago.  For instance, the
GNU readline library is GPL, not LGPL.  He said this was a way to
force people to GPL their code.  LGPL should only be used for things
that had widely available commercial replacements.  GPL should be used
for freeware with no substitute, thus forcing anyone who wants the
benefit of the free library to free their code.

-- 
------------------------
Michael D. Hirsch, Ph.D.
Software Developer
zapmedia.com

Phone: 678-420-2722                FAX: 678-420-2839
email: michael.hirsch at zapmedia.com Web: http://www.zapmedia.com
--
To unsubscribe: mail majordomo at ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.