John Cowan <co...@ccil.org> writes: >> Whether or not a GPLed JSON library requires the Scheme implementation >> > to be itself GPL depends on the implementation, but certainly a >> > stand-alone *application* that uses it would have to be. >> >> Again, you are mistaken. Check your facts, please. See >> <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible>. … > Thus if the JSON library is combined into the Scheme implementation as part > of it, and that implementation is released, it must be released under the > GPL. If a stand-alone application (as opposed to a mere script that > invokes the implementation) written in Scheme makes use of a GPLed library, > it too (if publicly distributed) must be GPLed. That's what I said
The precise statment would be: If you use a GPL’ed library, you must license your own code under a GPL-compatible license and release the application as a whole under the GPL. I’m often in that bind at work myself. If I’d just like to use a lib, but it’s GPL licensed. I hope that some day our product management/sales will release under free licenses. > As for clang, Apple funded it for commercial reasons, but there were > efforts among BSD developers to write their own C compiler for years before > that, though they came to nothing. There is lots of history for GPL-criticism by BSD developers. I don’t agree with their reasoning. Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein ohne es zu merken
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
