3 ms·

Your emotional active downvoting will not make any my statements false. All I said in this thread is true. GPL-licensed code is viral: GPL in any library expand

by mkup 14y ago

Your emotional active downvoting will not make any my statements false. All I said in this thread is true. GPL-licensed code is viral: GPL in any library expands itself to the whole work; and it is illegal to distribute solely binary file, statically linked with LGPL-licensed library. Why do you think OpenOffice is under LGPL? Who is going to statically or dynamically link with that "library"? They are using LGPL because they don't want copyleft to infest every code bundled with their code in the 'collective', or 'derived' work. That is the difference between strong copyleft and weak copyleft, and you should have educated yourself before using downvote button.

jmillikin 14y ago
I did not downvote you. It is impossible for me to have downvoted you, due to the technical properties of Hacker News. Obviously, you are one of the many people being paid to spread propaganda about the GPL/LGPL. Please find another line of work, one which is less harmful to the programming community and the world at large.
- mkup 14y ago
  Propaganda is, by definition, information sponsored by government. It's when people get brainwashed via taxpayer money. I'm not a government official, contractor, and not affiliated in any way. I fail to see how can I do any harm to the programming community (and the world at large) just by explaining GPL/LGPL difference, or strong/weak copyleft difference. Discussion is beneficial for all parties: now you know that static linking of LGPL library into solely distributed binary EXE file is impossible, now I agree that GPL can't expand itself from DLL to EXE if DLL is packaged and installed separately and makes sense on its own (used by other applications), now you know that GPL will expand itself from DLL to EXE if they are in single downloadable/installable package, and now I know that we should bundle our proprietary code in the next product with FreeBSD kernel, not Linux. How open, public discussion can do any harm to anyone? Yes I'm not FSF/GNU/RMS/copyleft zealot, so what?

by mkup 14y ago

jmillikin 14y ago

I did not downvote you. It is impossible for me to have downvoted you, due to the technical properties of Hacker News. Obviously, you are one of the many people being paid to spread propaganda about the GPL/LGPL. Please find another line of work, one which is less harmful to the programming community and the world at large.

mkup 14y ago
Propaganda is, by definition, information sponsored by government. It's when people get brainwashed via taxpayer money. I'm not a government official, contractor, and not affiliated in any way. I fail to see how can I do any harm to the programming community (and the world at large) just by explaining GPL/LGPL difference, or strong/weak copyleft difference. Discussion is beneficial for all parties: now you know that static linking of LGPL library into solely distributed binary EXE file is impossible, now I agree that GPL can't expand itself from DLL to EXE if DLL is packaged and installed separately and makes sense on its own (used by other applications), now you know that GPL will expand itself from DLL to EXE if they are in single downloadable/installable package, and now I know that we should bundle our proprietary code in the next product with FreeBSD kernel, not Linux. How open, public discussion can do any harm to anyone? Yes I'm not FSF/GNU/RMS/copyleft zealot, so what?