Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 04:46:22PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: >>>>> also sprach Kari Pahula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.05.11.1535 +0200]: >>>>> > * License : GPL v2 or later >>>>> >>>>> That will make it pretty useless for non-GPL applications. >>>> >>>> Non-GPL compatible applications, you mean? >>> >>> Which non-GPL license can I choose for a software that uses this >>> library? >> >> Any license that is compatible with the GPL, such as the revised BSD >> license. > > But the software is a derivative work of the GPL. Doesn't it need to be > licensed under the GPL, too?
As a derived work of a GPL'd work, the aggregate is covered by the GPL license. But the source code files doesn't have to be licensed under the GPL. If someone replace the calls to the GPL'd library in the BSD code with calls to a BSD library, they don't have to distribute the new package under the GPL. /Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
