On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 09:03:47AM +0100, Tomas Hlavaty wrote: > On Sun 22 Nov 2020 at 01:32, Alexander Williams <a...@unscramble.co.jp> wrote: > > Not a lawyer here, but PicoLisp 21 does **not** need to be GPL'd. > > it does not because it is already compatible with GPL > > > Everyone seems to confuse "linking to a GPL'd library that exists on the > > host computer" VS "linking to a GPL'd library that's included with the > > source code". > > > > Please stop mixing these things. > > strange, i don't think that's right > > > If you don't have libreadline on your system, you can't compile pil21. > > this means that pil21 depends on GPL software > > and the combined work is licensed under GPL
it isn't. It may be a violation of one of those licenses in some circumstances but that does not ever convert the licence of your own prject. The only time you have to worry about this is if you would distribute binaries. The sources itself can't violate the licence and everyone is free to compile them without violating the licence. Richard -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
