Alessandro Zummo <azummo-lists at towertech.it> writes: > On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:00:38 +0200 (CEST) > Johannes Meixner <jsmeix at suse.de> wrote: > >> As far as I see, it seems to be allowed from the legal point >> of view to have free software that uses non-free libraries >> because they only say that the program won't be fully usable >> or not usable at all in a free environment but they don't >> say it violates the GPL. > > correct.
No so. As per my reply to Johannes' mail: This depends on the respective license conditions of the free and non-free parts. If all of the conditions are not mutually exclusive, then there is no problem license wise. If even only two of the conditions are mutually exclusive, you have a license violation on your hands. The above goes for any kind of combination where multiple licenses are involved, not just when combining with GPL'd software. >> But what does "If it depends on a non-free library to run at all, >> it cannot be part of a free operating system such as GNU" mean? >> >> Is "cannot be part of GNU" meant as a license violation or >> just that it cannot be included in a "free operating system" >> simply because it is useless? > > I think it mean it would be included in debian non-free rather > than main, for example. or something like that. Johannes was reading from the GPL FAQ, on gnu.org. A free operating system would be one that is free in terms of GNU philosophy. I think the "cannot be part of a free operating system" bit should be interpreted as "has no place in a free operating system". > [snip] Hope this helps, -- Olaf Meeuwissen FLOSS Engineer -- AVASYS Corporation FSF Associate Member #1962 sign up at http://member.fsf.org/
