[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <29562.1202839330@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:02:10 -0500
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
Cc: davids@...master.com, David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Christer Weinigel <christer@...nigel.se>,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: mark USB drivers as being GPL only
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 05:50:17 +0100, Marcel Holtmann said:
> go ahead and create an application that uses a GPL only library. Then
> ask a lawyer if it is okay to distribute your application in binary only
> form without making the source code available (according to the GPL).
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL
What happens if I ship a binary-only program that uses *either* a GPL library
or a custom library with the same API? "If you don't have the Frobozz-Foo
library, you'll have to supply your own work-alike"....
(Note that this is in fact the *usual* case - very few programs actually
check that they are linking against a Genuine GPL(tm) library, they just want
the *API*, so providing a work-alike is sufficient....)
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists