Distributing Ruby DLL

My understaning of GPL says that GPL code can be freely used anywhere as
long as there is not source level linkage - if you have only some binary
interaction with GPLed code, then the licencsing of the GPL code cannot
affect the rest of you source code. So if it is a DLL, then I think it
should be fine.

The only thing that can then get in your way is the actual licensing of
binaries in the ruby dist. I belive the ruby license itself is more
liberal that the GPL, so you are free to do as you please.

Everything above maybe wrong, please read through the license docs
yourself, every license that is valid in this context has to be avilable
in the ruby distribution itself, so you wont have to look very far.

Roshan

InterScan_Disclaimer.txt (520 Bytes)

Hello Roshan,

Tuesday, April 27, 2004, 7:57:41 AM, you wrote:

Everything above maybe wrong, please read through the license docs
yourself, every license that is valid in this context has to be avilable
in the ruby distribution itself, so you wont have to look very far.

I think everything above is wrong.
a GPL DLL definitely puts the calling code under the the GPL. Thats
why we have LGPL and GPL. Some people (the MySQL company) think that even
connections with sockets to a GPL server makes the client application
to fall under the GPL. I believe that this is absolute nonsense,
but at the moment it is a good FUD strategy and a reason to boycott MySQL.

···

--
Best regards,
Lothar mailto:mailinglists@scriptolutions.com

Your understanding is essentially correct, with a couple of important
caveats:

  1. The FSF does not agree.
  2. US case law appears to mostly agree, but it is not entirely settled.
  3. Other jurisdictions may deal with this differently.

-austin

···

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:57:41 +0900, James, Roshan (Cognizant) wrote:

My understaning of GPL says that GPL code can be freely used anywhere as
long as there is not source level linkage - if you have only some binary
interaction with GPLed code, then the licencsing of the GPL code cannot
affect the rest of you source code. So if it is a DLL, then I think it
should be fine.

The only thing that can then get in your way is the actual licensing of
binaries in the ruby dist. I belive the ruby license itself is more
liberal that the GPL, so you are free to do as you please.

Everything above maybe wrong, please read through the license docs
yourself, every license that is valid in this context has to be avilable
in the ruby distribution itself, so you wont have to look very far.


austin ziegler * austin@halostatue.ca * Toronto, ON, Canada
software designer * pragmatic programmer * 2004.04.27
* 08.12.17

This whole point is moot.

The regexp library is LGPLed, not GPLed. The LGPL license does not have
restrictions on linking, so you can distribute it with proprietary
software if you wish, as long as you tell them where to get the source
code for the LGPLed library (which is rather simple and shouldn’t
impact your distribution at all).

basically, it turns out that there is nothing to worry about. just
include a link to ruby’s website, and distribute the dll.

–Mark

···

On Apr 27, 2004, at 5:15 AM, Austin Ziegler wrote:

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:57:41 +0900, James, Roshan (Cognizant) wrote:

My understaning of GPL says that GPL code can be freely used anywhere
as
long as there is not source level linkage - if you have only some
binary
interaction with GPLed code, then the licencsing of the GPL code
cannot
affect the rest of you source code. So if it is a DLL, then I think it
should be fine.

The only thing that can then get in your way is the actual licensing
of
binaries in the ruby dist. I belive the ruby license itself is more
liberal that the GPL, so you are free to do as you please.

Everything above maybe wrong, please read through the license docs
yourself, every license that is valid in this context has to be
avilable
in the ruby distribution itself, so you wont have to look very far.

Your understanding is essentially correct, with a couple of important
caveats:

  1. The FSF does not agree.
  2. US case law appears to mostly agree, but it is not entirely settled.
  3. Other jurisdictions may deal with this differently.