Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th Nov 2005 21:55 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 57760
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.






Member since:
With regards to linking, I believe the following is really more accurate:
a) ILLEGAL = CDDL application linked with GPL lib
b) LEGAL = GPL application linked with CDDL lib
.. think about. If (b) was not ok, then that means anyone can FORCE everyone else to convert to GPL simply by making a one line program that links with the other persons' non-GPL lib. Can you imagine that? An unstoppable viral clause!
This is why BSD folks CANNOT link against GPL libs, because their BSD work will *effectively* turn into GPL code but GPL folks can link and use source from BSDL'd code. .. and please no excuses about seperate copyrights or licenses since the entire work would now be considered derived from the GPL therefore anyone who uses such a combined work of BSD + GPL from then on must apply the GPL to their own
Remember that linking or more specifically interface usage is UNIDIRECTIONAL! A library cannot control nor know who will link with it. Derived work means that final product (executable or binary) *using* (i.e. calling or branching to) GPL code must be also be GPL -- that does not imply the inverse!
Another example: the linux kernel which links with kernel modules. There are already of LEGAL proprietary non-OSS binary kernel modules.