Heiko Wundram wrote: > This is not what the general interpretation of the GPL seems to be with > TrollTech and several other companies. They specifically state that even > when you develop inhouse software with GPL-libraries (Qt in the former > case), you are required to release the code of the application under the > GPL. If this weren't so (and you're the first I hear of that takes this > stance), the GPL would basically be meaningless as a business model to > them, and AFAICT this is also what the FSF tells people.
By the way, this is (one of the reasons) why the MySQL client libraries were licensed under the LGPL and now under a different licensing model with explicitly permits linking to GPL-incompatible licenses, at least if you take MySQL AB's word. See here: http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/foss-exception.html and here (german) http://www.sunflyer.ch/2004/01/18/MySQL-und-die-Lizenzen.php And maybe nobody has sued Google so far because they are considered to be the good guys, generally...? --- Heiko. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
