Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Joerg Schilling Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
You should read the GPL and get help to understand it. The GPL does not forbid this linking. In contrary, the GPOL allows any GPLd program to be linked against any library under and license. If this was not thecase, you could not legally distribute binaries from GPLd programs.
You can't distribute GPLd programs unless 'the work as a whole' is covered by the GPL. There can't be a distinction between binary and source since one is derived from the other.
Now you just need to understand what "as a whole" means....
Try to be clever and try to inform yourself before sending more fals claims as you did already.
Maybe you are a native english speaker and thus lazy with reading the GPL. If you carefully read the GPL, you of course understand that it is _very_ careful about what parts the GPL applies to. It definitely does _not_ apply to the "complete source".
If you have problems to understand the GPL, read one of the various comments from lawyers, but avoid Mr. Moglen - he is well known for intentionally writing false claims in the public and only uses correct lawful interpretations if he is in a private discussion.
My code is fully legal and there is absolutely no license problem with it.
Umm, no. Larry Wall clearly understood this eons ago.
???
Odd, I expected you to be as smart as him. He started with only the 'Artistic' license but quickly understood the issues when you need part of the 'work as a whole' to include, say, linking in a proprietary database driver as one component and GPL'd readline as another, along with the code he wanted to be generally usable. And he did something about it.
The fact that there is GNU readline verifies that some people at FSF are in fact hostile against OSS.
BTW: I don't need GNU readline as I have my owm history editor since August 1984 ;-)
And fortunately, Larry didn't publish "patch" under GPL, so I was able to write a non-GPLd POSIX compliant patch (note that gpatch is not POSIX compliant).
Again, don't follow the agitation from OSS enemies. You are of course wrong!
You don't have to 'follow' anything - just read the phrase 'work as a whole'.
You need to _understand_ the GPL and avoid to just lazyly read it as you did before. The GPL does _not_ apply to _everything_. The GPL just applies to the "work" that is under GPL. For the rest, you just need to include it under _any_ license and if you did ever carefully read the GPL, you of course did know that already.
There are parts in the GPL that read similar to: "under the terms and conditions of this license". These parts apply to GPL code only, but enforce all GPL rules.
There are other parts in th GPL that read similar to: "under the terms and conditions of paragraph xxx". And these parts just require you to follow the rules in the named part of the GPL but not to more! These parts apply to what the GPL addresses when speaking about the "complete source".
Fazit: The GPL does not require you to put everything under GPL. It just requires you to include makefiles, scripts and libraries under any license that permits redistribution.
Question: If _you_ believe that it is OK to mix your code with GPL'd code, why not add the dual licensing statement that would make it clear for everyone else? It doesn't take anything away - unless you really don't want it to be used in other projects.
Why should I do something that is not needed?
My question is 'why not do it?'. You don't lose anything but the restrictions that you pretend aren't there since a dual license allows you to choose the terms of the other if you prefer. I don't like the GPL restrictions either, but I just say so instead of pretending otherwise. A dual license is clearly needed unless your point is to make people choose between either using your code or anything that is GPL'd.
If I did add the GPL to my code, I would not win anything, because antisocial people would still prevent it from being included in Debian or RedHat.
I would however risk that people send interesting patches as GPL only and this way prevent the freedom to use it by anybody.
But before you like to discuss things with me, I recommend you to first inform yourself correctly.
I if course _don't_ mix CDDLd code with GPLd code.So, you really don't want your code to be used? Then why ask why it isn't popular?
Please explain me why people believe RedHat or Centos is a good choice when there are people inside that write false claims on the GPL because they did not read it in a way that would allow them to understand the GPL?
Jörg