Alex Martelli wrote:
Jeff Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Note that the so-called 'viral' nature of GPL code only applies to *modifications you make* to the GPL software. The *only* way in which
your code can be 'infected' by the GPL is if you copy GPL source.
...
(Problems may come if someone licenses a library under the GPL; that's
what the LGPL was invented for. But the issue here is not that the GPL is bad, it's that the author used the wrong form of it.)
Stallman now says that you should use GPL, not Lesser GPL.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
Specifically, he wants library authors to use GPL to impose the viral nature of GPL on other programs just USING the library -- the very opposite of what you say about "only applies ... if you copy"!
Ah, I haven't kept up on Stallman's current opinions, and was speaking from the understanding I had of GPL/LGPL as of a number of years ago (before that article was written).
By "copy", above, I meant "use GPL source in your product". The GPL defines what it means to use source in a rather inclusive way. That inclusiveness means that the standard usage of libraries falls under their definition of "using source". This distinction in the normal terms of "usage" is what impelled the FSF to create the LGPL in the first place...
So, I think what I said still (mostly) stands, as long as you look at it in terms of whether object code is copied into your executable. ;) It's still true that one can use (in a consumer sense) GPL software for whatever purpose one wishes, and the restrictions only kick in when one includes GPL code in another product. Indeed, I should have used the word "include" rather than "copy"...
(It's hardly surprising that Stallman wants to use whatever leverage he can get to encourage FSF-style free software...)
Jeff Shannon Technician/Programmer Credit International
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
