3 ms·
> GPL says what can be done with "foo" and things that depend on "foo"; it says nothing about what "foo" can or should depend on. False, the GPL (when applied
by versteegen 6y ago
> GPL says what can be done with "foo" and things that depend on "foo"; it says nothing about what "foo" can or should depend on.
False, the GPL (when applied to binaries rather than source code) applies to entire copyrighted works -- entire programs, with the exception of "major essential components" of the OS (ie system libraries). No other limits are placed (unless the author adds them): it's designed to stretch as far as the concept of "copyrighted work" will allow, which is presumed to include dynamically linked dependencies, and commonly presumed to not include other binaries called by your program (e.g. calling the Steam API using RPC is GPL-compatible, doing it using the SteamWorks client library is not.)
I wrote "you can't distribute a binary under the GPL..." which is true regardless of whether you wrote the program. Of course if you own the software you can instead distribute it under a different license, or add exceptions to the GPL.
- versteegen 6y agoTo reword: basically, you're right in that if you own the code, you can license it under GPL with an exception to allow linking to anything you want. If you don't add necessary exceptions and distribute binaries, you've provided an invalid license to code you don't own, and those binaries aren't lawfully redistributable. See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLib... (Would have edited my post to this, but the noprocast timeout got me)
- alanfranz 6y agoI think we agree and we understand the license. I was trying to clarify the point that the GPL is binding for the licensee, not the copyright holder, since that seemed tonbe CursedUrn's doubt. You are right that plain vanilla GPL (rightfully) places restrictions about what you can link to from your program.