I just remembered that I tried once to figure out what is going on in the OSS licenses landscape and my little findings are here:
http://blog.ckkloverdos.com/2007/10/18/on-open-source-licenses-ckkl-core/
BR
Christos.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Christos KK Loverdos
<loverdos@...> wrote:
This is totally untrue. It is vaguely sortof kindof true if you think
applications begin and end with web applications which don't get
distributed to end users, but they don't. If you're distributing the
application, distributing a library licensed under the GPL along with
it is going to force you to distribute the source of the application
too.
You may be thinking of the LGPL, which is a very different license.
Yes, I was trying to speak generally for the OSS landscape with a particular license in mind, which is unsound by definition. :-)
Well, the case with GPL is what constitutes a derivative work: Does my program, which just links to a GPL library, even dynamically, constitute a derivative work of that GPL library?
It seems that this issue has not been legally settled for good up to now, but If one wants to be careful, then one should be better off avoiding the use of GPL code in commercial cases we discuss here....
--
__~O
-\ <, Christos KK Loverdos
(*)/ (*)
http://ckkloverdos.com
