[ale] OT: GPL Question

[Fulton Green]

The way I understand it ...

The GPL is "viral". Any software you write that *links*, or binds, with a
GPL'd library must also become GPL'd.

OTOH, if the library in question is LGPL'd ("L" = "lesser"), you're not
obligated to license your code under GPL or LGPL as long as you don't have
any other similarly viral libs.

If you were to make a modification to the LGPL'd lib, you would need to
release your mods to that lib in at least a patchable form (if not the whole
source tree) along w/your software binaries.

The GNU C library and the majority of other popular libs are LGPL'd.

Libraries that are "BSD'd" (i.e., Berkeley-style license) are much less
viral.

All this is extreme generalization, so read the licenses carefully and
consult w/your lawyer before proceeding any further. And it goes w/o saying
that IANAL.

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 04:31:39PM -0400, Jeffrey B. Layton wrote:
>    If I install a piece of software that is licensed under
> GPL, say a mathematical library, and write my own
> code that just calls functions within the library (I
> have not modified the library in any way and do not
> statically link the library), do I have to license my
> code under GPL? My initial gut feel is I can license
> my software any way I want, but this is brewing
> into a controversary at work and I want to get some
> input (and any links) before discussing this with the
> attorneys.

---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.