'GPL encumbrance problems' (jdow)

[Mike McCarty]

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!