From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Dumb Licensing Questions Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2016 09:03:41 +0100 Message-ID: <20161224080340.GB30358@tuxteam.de> References: <1481769661.14047.38.camel@members.fsf.org> <87vaulxaq7.fsf@web.de> <92993b98-1da1-1bcc-ecb4-01deede37183@pelzflorian.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; x-action=pgp-signed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1482566661 12505 195.159.176.226 (24 Dec 2016 08:04:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2016 08:04:21 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) To: guile-user@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 24 09:04:16 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cKhJM-0002Fp-Tp for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sat, 24 Dec 2016 09:04:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42622 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cKhJR-0007Uy-Ea for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sat, 24 Dec 2016 03:04:17 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50500) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cKhJ5-0007Ui-6N for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Dec 2016 03:03:56 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cKhJ2-0006WC-38 for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Dec 2016 03:03:55 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.tuxteam.de ([5.199.139.25]:39419 helo=tomasium.tuxteam.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cKhJ1-0006Tr-TV for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Dec 2016 03:03:52 -0500 Original-Received: from tomas by tomasium.tuxteam.de with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1cKhIr-00081O-0w for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Dec 2016 09:03:41 +0100 In-Reply-To: <92993b98-1da1-1bcc-ecb4-01deede37183@pelzflorian.de> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 5.199.139.25 X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "guile-user" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:13046 Archived-At: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 07:15:04AM +0100, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote: > On 12/15/2016 08:18 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > > > > Wes Frazier writes: > > > > […] > > For compiled code as well as for interpreted code which uses GPL’ed > > code, your own code has to be under a GPL-compatible license. > > > > If you ship the different parts together, the resulting *combined work* > > will be GPL, but your part of the code will stay under the > > (GPL-compatible) license you selected. > > […] > > IANAL but on Wikipedia this sounds far from clear: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL#Linking_and_derived_works That's probably because YANAL. (sorry, couldn't resist). It's clear that there are different standpoints. The linking thing (dynamic or static) hasn't, AFAIK, tested in court. It's quite possible that different courts reach different conclusions (in the same or different places in the world). It's even possible (gasp!) that the legal interpretations of things change over time. If I were you, I'd just comply with what the FSF proposes, and that is pretty clear [1]. Any reasons not to comply with that? Sorry if this sounds a bit grumpy. regards - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlheK9wACgkQBcgs9XrR2ka0mwCePUimAFfDpz6tYrPFgCXDUz+x xWEAn1c8azuXDWsP6sw7JM+yYgtGl7/r =olUk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----