-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 22 April 2004 11:45 pm, Peter N Lewis wrote:
> I'm confused by this. If it "does not contain code from any
GPL-covered software", then surely you can release it under any license you feel like, whether it can run stand-alone or not. If I
A program can be free of code from a GPL-covered program, but it links with a library licensed under the GPL, then it has to be under the GPL as well. It is this catch, if you will, that led to the LGPL.
This could only be true if you ship the binary with it linked.
First, the disclaimer, IANAL.
Second, I wrote gdbm for the FSF and have had many many conversations with Mr. Stallman about the GPL and how it applies to libraries. The key to the GPL is the understanding of "derivative work". I'll use gdbm as an example.
If code directly calls any of the gdbm functions, it *is* a derivative work. Therefore, any work that directly calls gdbm functions and is distributed must be distributed under the terms of the GPL. Of course, the GPL is transitive, thus any program that has a call path that ends up in a gdbm function is required to be under the GPL. (If distributed.)
If your code is written for the original dbm interface it is not a derivative work of gdbm, even if you happen to use the dbm interface to gdbm. It would be considered a derivative work of dbm.
I don't know if this would stand up in a court of law, but I'm very sure this is what Mr. Stallman intended for the GPL. I have requested that gdbm be put under the LGPL so that programs that use gdbm don't have to be under the GPL, but he has chosen to keep the GPL on gdbm. Therefore, whenever people ask about gdbm, the GPL and their programs, I must tell them that if they plan to distribute a work that uses gdbm functions, it must be distributed under the GPL.
- --Phil
- -- Phil Nelson NetBSD: http://www.netbsd.org e-mail: phil@cs.wwu.edu Coda: http://www.coda.cs.cmu.edu http://www.cs.wwu.edu/nelson