[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GPL question

From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
Subject: Re: GPL question
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:37:53 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12)

On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 06:03:03AM -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
> I am still confused. Does mere linking make the result realy
> *contain* code from a GPL program?

Most rational people consider it so, but you seem to want legal advice
so I hope you follow the sane reasoning of taking the license to a
lawyer and obtain a binding legal opinion.

Otherwise, feel free to run the risks of getting fired or bankrupt.

> How come they are allowed to do that but I am not?

Are you sure they didn't get a proprietary license from the authors?
It could also be the case that they haven't been caught yet...

> > From the GNU GPL FAQ:
> Where can I find this GNU GPL FAQ? Is it normative? Legaly binding?

Did you even try? Search in Google for gpl faq, click on I'm Felling Lucky

The GNU GPL is normative, and legally binding. The FAQ aims to list a
series of questions you may have and put clear answers. Otherwise you
have to study the license and find out the questions & answers yourself.

It's there to help you understand the license.

> > | I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary
> > | system. Can I do this?
> Again, is mere dynamic linking the same as "incorporating GPL-covered
> software"?

You seem say it's "mere" as if it isn't anything important, are you a
programmer or someone trying to circunvent the nice license?


Or is it?
Today is Setting Orange, the 66th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]