PROPOSAL: licensing guidelines

[Kai Henningsen]

spotter at yucs.org (Shaya Potter)  wrote on 17.05.00 in <Pine.LNX.4.10.10005171609280.8142-100000 at yucs.org>:

> On 17 May 2000, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
>
> > Maurizio De Cecco <maurizio at mandrakesoft.com> writes:
> >
> > > My point is: suppose i implement a system where *all* the libraries
> > > are GPL, and not LGPL, would that implementation be non standard
> > > compliant *because* of the licence ?
> >
> > Well, let's say there is a LSB definition for "libfoo".  Someone writes
> > a non-free non-GPL commercial proprietary application and dynamically
> > links it against the LGPL implementation of libfoo.  If someone else
> > then implements a GPL version of libfoo, it would not imply that the
> > application is now violating the GPL because it was originally linked
> > against the LGPL version.
> >
> > My question is: if you (as a system administrator or user) installed the
> > application on a system that used the GPL version of libfoo instead of
> > the LGPL version, would you be violating the GPL?
>
> It's questionable.

Nope. The GPL says that unless you distribute, you can do what you want.  
The above SA or user doesn't distribute, therefore the GPL doesn't require  
anything.

This is a pretty important point: for inhouse usage, you can link readline  
with Microsoft Word without legal problems. You just can't give it away.

MfG Kai