Re: 'GPL encumbrance problems' (jdow)

Les Mikesell wrote:

On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 16:31, STYMA, ROBERT E (ROBERT) wrote:

The direction this discussion is going seems to be that if code
makes use of a shared library (.so) directly or indiretly which

is GPL'ed and that code is to be distributed, it has to be GPL'ed.

Not exactly.  If the library itself is not distributed with
a program that uses it, and there are alternative libraries
that provide the same functionality (like a the standard C

AND the executable is not actually linked with the LGPL library...

library, etc.), then there can be no claim that the program
is derived from the GPL'ed library that might be linked at
some point, and thus no possible copyright restrictions on
the main program.  For example long ago someone wanted to use
the gmp math library in code not encumbered by the GPL and
was forced to write a compatible but horrible equivalent that
no one ever used just to demonstrate that his own code was
not derived from the not-included gmp.  Since then, I think
the gmp has been converted to lgpl, probably just to avoid
further discussion of that sorry mess.

Even that wouldn't save the day, if he also linked with another
library which he couldn't ship. LGPL prohibits that.

Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!