On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 01:58 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 00:34 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: > > > >>STYMA, ROBERT E (ROBERT) wrote: > > [snip] > > >>>I seem to remember that libc.so is LGPL, so that takes care of > >>>the "hello world" program. > >> > >>That about sums it up. I have never released a commercial program > >>for Linux, and probably never will. Mostly because Linux is not > >>Linux, but rather Linux+GNU, and all of GNU is GPL or LGPL. > >>Linux per se is not the problem, the problem is that *building* > >>for Linux uses GNU, which, like all FSF stuff, is GPL or LGPL, > >>both of which are highly infective (though LGPL is slighly less > >>so). > > > > Non-sense. The Linux glibc's and other fundamental system libraries' > > licenses (e.g. libstdc++) have been carefully chosen to allow this case. > > I'm starting to get annoyed by this. Feel free to do so, ... I would not have replied to this thread, if I wouldn't think you are spreading FUD. EOT - I am not going to continue this thread. Ralf
