//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.
I am just curious about how this would work then - if I do
LoadLibrary(“somefile.dll”) in my code and the licensing of a
generally available “somefile.dll” became GPL code, it affects the
licensing of my program?
So any program on a linux machine, that uses any .so that is
under the GPL becomes GPLed ?
Isnt that a little harsh? I thought it applied to only source
level linkages and modifications (or derivate works).
//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.
Thank you Austin - I was personally considering building some
free code (free not as in FSF ©Free, but free as in generally-
lying-around-without-a-license-for-everyone-to-use-free) that uses
Ruby as the major ingredient in the config script.
If this restriction applies, then I’d be forced not to use ruby
because I would like a company to be able to make money out of
my work and and keep their work proprietary or not at their option,
rather than my dictation.
Roshan
http://pensieve.thinkingms.com/
InterScan_Disclaimer.txt (520 Bytes)