4 ms·
It is if you link it into your address space. If your code wants to be non-GPL then it needs to have some kind of barrier between it and the GPL code that it us
by jart 2y ago
It is if you link it into your address space. If your code wants to be non-GPL then it needs to have some kind of barrier between it and the GPL code that it uses. For Linux, that would be the kernel syscall abi. But normally it's the process boundary. For example, if your program spawns the GNU gperf command, then its GPL license doesn't apply to your program. Furthermore, the generated code that the gperf command prints to stdout, is not encumbered by the GPL. In other words, the output of a GPL licensed program belongs to you. But if you were to copy gperf's .c files into your codebase and use their perfect hash table algorithm, then your software would become GPL encumbered, but only if you distribute. They will sue you and spare no quarter if you don't give your users the same freedoms that they gave you. Even if the gperf dev team doesn't do it, then some other org representing someone who contributed a bug fix once will. You can't hide and there is no time to survive, because GitHub can be easily monitored using tools like BigQuery.
- pxc 2y ago> spare no quarter if you don't give your users the same freedoms that they gave you. What? The actual history of GPL enforcement is restrained when it comes to remediation. Are you aware of some routinely punitive GPL enforcer that I am not? Or is this FUD or a joke? I hope I've not missed some news about your own projects and that you've not been subject to anxiety or meanness on account of the GPL, either. :(