Re: Dumb Licensing Questions

[Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab@web.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1618 bytes --]


Wes Frazier writes:

> Ive mostly stuck to compiled languages until now. However, I know that
> if I were writing compiled code, using a GPLed library with no linking
> exception, my resulting code would have to be GPLed as well. This is why
> many libraries are under the LGPL instead (including libsdl proper.)
> 
> Is this the case for interpreted languages? including scheme code
> interpreted via guile? Is code using guile-sdl thus forced to be under
> the GPL?

You need to differenciate more strongly between code and the combined
work your users actually get.

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.

This means you have to provide your code to people who get your
*combined work*, but the license of your part of the code need not be
GPL — only GPL-compatible.

If through refactoring you incorporate some GPL code into code which is
only GPL-compatible, having different licenses for different parts of
the codebase will likely become hard to maintain so the pragmatic
decision is simply using the GPL.

> And if so why was guile-sdl licensed GPL when it's upstream library was
> LGPL? Was this intentional?

I do not know that. It could have been intentional or not — I can find
good reasons for and against that.

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 800 bytes --]