|
Authored by: hardmath on Saturday, June 16 2012 @ 08:21 AM EDT |
Greater GPL would only be a problem for developers who wanted to use the OP's
library to build something for distribution, not for the OP in the first
instance.
But thinking ahead, LGPL seems the way to go.
--hm
---
"Prolog is an efficient programming language because it is a very stupid theorem
prover." -- Richard O'Keefe[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: greed on Saturday, June 16 2012 @ 05:14 PM EDT |
The GPL requires that the "work, as a whole" be covered by the GPL.
(GPLv3 5.c) When you're distributing your source code that's easy: it's just
the source.
But when you distribute binaries, the "work, as a whole" is everything
in the binary: your source and everything it pulls in during compile and link.
Section 6 (GPLv3) has an exclusion for System Libraries, as defined in section
1.
Therefore, such non-Free libraries must be part of the operating system or the
language compiler/interpreter support environment.
And yes, it's fairly easy to produce programs which can only be distributed in
source form because of incompatible license combinations.
That's assuming your source cannot be considered a derived work of the non-Free
library, of course.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|