[DUG] Open source licences

[Ben Taylor]

--- Steven Knight <Steven.Knight at ecan.govt.nz> wrote:
> 
> Think I am wrong because further down in the page you refered to, I found this:
> ==========================
> 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. 
> ==========================

that depends on what the definition of library is. in this case, it seems they are
referring to a collection of code (that gets compiled into an exe) rather than a
dll.

this quote should help with the definition:

----
What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question,
which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both
on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared
address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of
information are interchanged).

If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely
combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared
address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms
normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for
communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of
the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures,
that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger
program. 
---- 


Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com