To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Apparently it is somewhat confusing to everyone, because as far as i know that is incorrect. That was the whole reason to create the LGPL license wasn't it? Which is what KHTML uses, so Apple only had to release the changes they made to it and not the rest of their application.
or even all the OS X source code?
That's easy - you only have to release the code that is directly linked to the GPL code. Calling a system call in the kernel doesn't count since that is more like passing a message to another piece of software rather than integrating that software directly into your own. That's why you can run proprietary apps on Linux and GPL apps on Windows, because they are considered seperate works and not extensions of the other.
Edited 2007-06-13 18:36
From a legal point of view, there is no difference between calling functions in a DLL and using system calls.
Indeed, with the fast system call techniques, where any call to a special memory page (the VDSO) is a jump into kernel code, there is no technical difference either.
The only thing that makes the GPL "contaminate" library users is if the user is a "derived work". If the program has to use that one and only library, it is probably derived. If it can use different libraries without changes, then it is probably not derived, and doesn't have to be GPL.




Member since:
2005-11-18
Yes it's somewhat confusing to non software developers.
Basically it's like this: (many people believe) you can have GPL code and proprietary mixed together as long as they are modularized into libraries with seemingly static boundaries. On windows this would be DLLs.
So you could perhaps have a GPL DLL for handling say, drawing PNGs. And a proprietary DLL for handling BMPs. Your image editing app (like photoshop) which uses both of these could be proprietary or GPL without (as many believe) breaking the law.