Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 13th Mar 2009 08:28 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source The whole FAT licensing saga between Microsoft and TomTom just got a whole lot more complicated. Microsoft sued TomTom because the satnav maker had not licensed FAT from Microsoft, even though several others have. This left TomTom in a difficult position: not license it, and face legal penalties - license it, and violate the GPL. The second part, however, is up for debate now: the terms under which Microsoft licenses FAT may not violate the GPL at all. Near-instant update: On Slashdot, Bruce Perens and Jeremy Allison have explained that the FAT terms are still a GPL violation. Allison accidentally emailed the journalist who wrote this story with the wrong information.
Permalink for comment 353070
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: GPL - go read it
by PowerMacX on Fri 13th Mar 2009 14:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: GPL - go read it"
Member since:

In a software authorship sense, a "derivative work" is one that contains a copy of someone else's original work. In a software sense, statically linking to a library actually includes a copy of the library in the new work, does it not? So to get permission to do that the original library would have to be licensed LGPL

As far as I know, you *can't* statically link an LGPL library without releasing your own software under the same license, you can only do that if you link dynamically. OTOH, in the case of a GPL library, as opposed to LGPL, you can't link at all unless your software is released as GPL too.

I think the static vs. dynamic is an artificial distinction and that no library should actually be released as LGPL: either select GPL, that forces everyone to adopt your license or release it under a BSD/MIT license that gives developers the freedom to link however they prefer and later release using their favorite license.

Reply Parent Score: 2