From: "Erwin Rol" <mailinglists@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 20:57 -0700, David G. Miller (aka DaveAtFraud)
wrote:
jdow@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: "Jeff Vian" <jvian10@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 21:40 +0000, Andy Green wrote:
>>
Up until recently I worked for a company that developed and marketed a
closed source, Linux based, network monitoring product
(http://www.vericept.com). The company lawyers saw no problem with us
building and selling a closed source product that included calls to a
variety of GPLed and LGPLed libraries. As has been extensively
discussed over at Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net) and elsewhere on the
'net, headers and interfaces are *not* protectable elements under
copyright law. The only way the GPL kicks (via copyright law) in is if
you actually modify executable GPLed code for your product. At worst,
you would then need to make only these changes to the GPLed code
available as source (there's also nothing that says the maintainer has
to accept your changes; just publishing them is sufficient).
The GPL kicks in if you distribute your product. If your program needs a
GPL library the program is a derived work from that library and so if
you distribute that program you have to distribute it in a GPL
compatible way (for example by putting the program under the GPL).
If you have a LGPL library the use of that library is not seen as a
derived work and hence you are free to choose the license for your
program.
What happens if I discover, after months of development, that some
LGPLed library I used actually itself uses a GPLed library and was
mis-licensed? I'm toast. This seems to me to be too big a risk for
me to spend much of any time trying to make a living off GPL tainted
software. I might try to make a reputation with it. But I'd not expect
it to be the sole source of money to keep my computers powered let
alone keep me powered.
{^_^}
