On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 19:47:03 GMT, Oliver Wong wrote:
>
>> | For example, no, the GPL is not "viral." I don't care what Microsoft or
>> | SCO tells you. It's not. Simply using GPL software as part of a larger
>> | program package doesn't force developers into putting their independent
>> | work under the GPL.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL
><quote>
> If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that
> any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
>
> Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library.
></quote>
>
> In the case of a contradiction, I'd probably put more weight on what GNU
> has to say about the GPL than what Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols has to say
> about it.
There's no contradiction. The original article was pointing out that
"mere aggregation" (as opposed to linking in a library) does not
invoke GPL requirements on the non-GPL parts of the aggregation.
Vaughan-Nichols didn't express this well ("using GPL software as part of
a larger program package") but I'm sure that's what he meant.
|
|
