On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 09:10, Oron Peled wrote: > On Thursday 06 November 2003 01:14, Micha Feigin wrote: > > From you are saying you can't use any GPL toolkit to build commercial > > software. > > You seem to confuse commercial with proprietary. A company may > charge money for GPL derived programs but if they distribute them > they must provide access to the source as well. (please read > the GPL FAQ at www.fsf.org) > > > AFAIK gcc is provided under LGPL so that it can be used free for > > commercial programs. > > 1. It's GPL -- read the license (it should have been provided with the > code...)
Sorry, I mixed glibc and gcc. glibc is lgpl. > to generate proprietary code since the code gcc > *generates* is not covered by GPL, just like the documents produced > by MS-Word are not covered by their EULA (Btw, it may interest your to > read the license of bison(1) -- it is a GPL with special exception > related to the generated code [to allow the part of bison code > that is included in the parser to be part of a proprietary program]) > > > I don't have legal training but I know of companies that take the > > approach I mentioned. > > So what? There are tons of people and companies that infringes > copyrights of proprietary software every day -- so now you think > it's legal? > > > Its yet to stand up in court though. > > What should stand up in court? The "right" to distribute software > against its license terms? You must be drinking. > > The only thing a court may need to decide is if linking a library > makes your software a derived work. As I said before, this case > looks clear enough to most people that even infringing companies > prefer to release code and not go to court when they get caught. > > good day, ================================================================= 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]
