On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 02:51 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > 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. > > [Lots of offensive aggressions deleted.]. 1. You might want to read: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/ in particular http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html 2. You might want to think about the backgrounds of the LSB. 3. You might want to think about the differences between static and dynamic linkage. 4. You might want to think about how it comes that major SW firms sell linux packages under commercial licenses (E.g. TrollTech/Qt, Apple, RedHat, SGI, NVidia, ATI, ...) 5. You might want fire your lawyers. Ralf -- Registered Linux User #26 http://counter.li.org
