On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 22:02, Oron Peled wrote: > On Wednesday 05 November 2003 20:39, Micha Feigin wrote: > > Although I believe that if you use dynamic linking you can still mix GPL > > and closed source (as you are not actually including the source in you > > program). > > The type of linking is irrelevant, the determining factor is if it's derived > work. Current opinions indicate that using a library make your work > a derived work but if you depend on this opinion, you better ask for legal > advice (IANAL). >
>From you are saying you can't use any GPL toolkit to build commercial software. AFAIK gcc is provided under LGPL so that it can be used free for commercial programs. I don't have legal training but I know of companies that take the approach I mentioned. Its yet to stand up in court though. > > Thats whats supposed to enable distributing closed source > > kernel modules. > > The only thing that currently enables distributing closed source kernel > modules is that kernel developers (including Linus) choose to ignore this > infringment (while it is frowned upon by them). There is nothing in the > license that gives you any exception of the GPL -- the authors simply > decide not to enforce it for the current binary drivers. > > Get informed. -- Micha Feigin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
