2 ms·
"""For example, according to the FSF, if the GPL code is a library, well then you do have to release the other code under GPL, even if the GPL-licensed library
by jmillikin 15y ago
"""For example, according to the FSF, if the GPL code is a library, well then you do have to release the other code under GPL, even if the GPL-licensed library is only a small component of the codebase."""
[citation needed]
I have never seen this claim made by any member of the FSF. If you're going to make incredible statements like that, please cite your sources.
"""GPL has held me back from doing several interesting projects that would have depended on an old GPL-licensed C library."""
No, you held yourself back because you were tricked by a cloud of unreasonable fear that has been spread about free- and open-source software.
Assuming your project was open-source, there is no reason at all that you couldn't have it depend on a GPL'd library.
- jnbiche 15y agoHere's the citation on the FSF license page, in no uncertain terms: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL The compatibility matrix on the same page confirms it, again in no uncertain terms: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility Both of these come from are from the official FSF license document: "FSF GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, Version 3, 29 June 2007 Copyright © 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <http://fsf.org/> http://fsf.org/> Why did you think that it was an incredible statement?
- jmillikin 15y agoBoth of those links support my position, and refute yours. Did you read them? edit: for the downvoters, here is a direct quote (emphasis added) from the first link (which covers combinations of GPL/non-GPL code): """If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any software which uses it has to be under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license?"""