Re: [tlug] gpl

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

>>>>> "BOTi" == BOTi  <BOTi> writes:

    BOTi> The application is using a library licensed under a BSD
    BOTi> style license.  Can I link my application to it or is it
    BOTi> a GPL violation?  I have a feeling it is. Should I
    BOTi> rather change to LGPL?

My personal opinion is that you should default to LGPL, and use GPL
only when (a) you have to or (b) you're pissed off at some BSD
developer and you want him to know it.  Be that as it may....

If it is really your code, and does not use any other GPL source or
link to a GPL library (eg, GNU readline), distributing it can't be a
GPL violation.  You are the copyright owner, you roolz.  However,
you'd be shooting yourself in the foot, as it's possible that nobody
else could redistribute your app.  Solution is simple.  Write a new
license which says "you may use, modify and redistribute this program
under the GPL, with the specific exemption that you may link to
library XYZ complying only with that library's license."  Ie, add a
clause that specifically exempts the non-GPL lib.  Do a diff on GPL
vs. LGPL to see what's needed; the LGPL is the GPL plus a generic
exemption of the kind you would need to make.  (Alternatively, you can
use any of the following strategies as if it were somebody else's GPL
code.)

Note that this works for _any_ non-GPL library, even a proprietary one
(as long as you and your GPL licensees can redistribute it).  If you
do that, though, rms will undoubtedly rise from his coffin and bite
you on the neck, so make sure you sleep with the windows closed.

Suppose that the GPL is forced on you by incorporating GPL code.  If
the library is distributed as part of the operating system, you need
to do nothing.  Note that this doesn't mean "on the same CD," this
means "part of" in the sense that Microsoft would have you believe
that Exploiter is "part of" Windose.

If the library is a separate (eg, 3rd party) work, the combination of
the library and your code is a single work and you must distribute
under GPL conditions.  This means that you must provide source for the
library too, as provided in the GPL.  The original library license
must be GPL-compatible.  The original BSD license was not, the amended
BSD license is.  See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ for a description
of the differences that matter.




-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
 My nostalgia for Icon makes me forget about any of the bad things.  I don't
have much nostalgia for Perl, so its faults I remember.  Scott Gilbert c.l.py