3 ms·
> Dynamic linking to a GPL software does not require the developer releasing their code. That's not true, you do have to release the code. There is no differen
by rhaps0dy 5y ago
> Dynamic linking to a GPL software does not require the developer releasing their code.
That's not true, you do have to release the code. There is no difference between statically or dynamically linking to a GPL library. Source:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLStaticVsDynamic https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLStaticVsDynamic
You may be thinking of the LGPL.
- gpanders 5y agoNot everyone agrees on this point [1]. One relevant quote: "This is ultimately a question not of the GPL per se, but of how copyright law defines derivative works." Whether or not dynamic linking constitutes a "derived" work is still an open question, legally speaking. Obviously the FSF has their own thoughts on this, but it's unclear how an actual court would rule. (IANAL, this is not legal advice, etc. etc.) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Lin...
- zmmmmm 5y agoThat may be true, but a state of ambiguity is as good as saying its covered by GPL ... no organisation is going to look at that and say "that's fine, let's use it". In fact, state of ambiguity is the worst for everyone because neither will users be able assume they can exercise their free software rights. So everyone loses.