6 ms·
libW in this case would pretty clearly be a derived work in this case, so would also need to carry the GPL license.
by TD-Linux 10y ago
libW in this case would pretty clearly be a derived work in this case, so would also need to carry the GPL license.
- wav-part 10y agoTrue but libW also has custom licence relieving closed_binary from make-it-gpl requirement. Unless GPL forbids libW to be anything but GPL'd.
- fourthark 10y agoIt does.
- pluma 10y agoThat's why it's called a "viral" license. If your code directly links GPL code, your code is now GPL code too. This is different from the non-viral LGPL (and MIT/BSD/whatever) which permits linking without "infecting" the linking code. There's a handy workaround that is 1) never actually distributing the linking code or 2) putting the code behind a network interface and talking to that instead of linking to the code itself. Both of these mean you're not "distributing" the infected code, so the requirement to publish the source code is not triggered. The second workaround is addressed by the Affero GPL which also requires source code to be published as an interface rather than as a distributed binary.
- wav-part 10y agoI was already aware what you have posted which ofcourse did not answered my question. What I came to know now is, from GPL-3.0/5.c > This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it. which does answer it.