[linux-elitists] questions about GPL again

Eugen Leitl eugen at leitl.org
Fri Mar 9 07:19:07 PST 2012


On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 06:59:07AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 12:02:03PM +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> > 
> > A senior guy from a rather well-known chemical abstracs service
> > just made the claim that GPL is contagious even for dynamically linked
> > code. Which I recall as not being correct.
> 
> What do you mean by "contagious"?  And which version of the GPL are you

In the corporate wonk oh-noes-we-have-to-opensource-everything-touched-by-GPL
sense.

> referring to?

They cluster v1/v2/v3 as one for all practical purposes. Is the
dynamic-linking of GPL libraries by proprietary code treated
differently across v1 to v3? 
 
> > Can somebody point me towards a definitive document or
> > piece of writing by a lawyer which definitevely shows
> > what the actual situation is?
> 
> The GPL itself is very easy to read, have you tried that?

Apparently (according to many online writing) many people 
find it confusing enough that they think ability to dynamically 
link (=just call a GPL library) requires a lawyer to interpret
how things are in your jurisdiction. 

I'd rather like to be able to cut through the FUD authoritatively. Is there
anything specific e.g. written by Eben Moglen I could point poor confused
souls to?


More information about the linux-elitists mailing list