On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at 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. >> > 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. >> >> Sure, there is nothing 'wrong' with your licence as long as it isn't >> mixed with anything with different restrictions. Just don't act >> surprised that the code doesn't get used in projects that have to >> accommodate GPL restrictions. > > > 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'. >> 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. > 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? -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com