Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
C++11 & The Long-Term Viability Of GCC Is Questioned
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by ryao View PostIf you read my original post, you would see that there was more to it than that:
The post to which you replied was a correction of a typo where I had said an obvious tautology. What I had said covered your Nvidia example.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RealNC View PostI don't see how. NVidia doesn't distribute the kernel nor do they use code from it. Also, if the kernel didn't specifically exclude userspace software from the GPL requirements, you couldn't even *run* non-GPL compatible software, because they invoke kernel routines similarly to using a GPL library. A GPL kernel is really not the same at all as an LGPL kernel.
I will not clarify myself again.Last edited by ryao; 31 January 2013, 03:16 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ryao View PostYou were talking about GPL-licensed software and then cited LGPL licensed software. There is a difference.
In any case... MPlayer is GPL. Gecko is GPL. Gnumeric is GPL. Abiword is GPL. LibreOffice was GPL (now LGPL). FFmpeg is GPL. x264 is GPL.
Some of them are also licensed under LGPL, MPL, or other licenses, but none of them is BSD.
The LGPL cannot be used to force a project to change licenses. That is something that Richard Stallman has done in the past with projects that depended upon GPL-licensed libraries. It is also why there are not many GPL-licensed libraries in use today.
Chrome is largely open source.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View PostMost people have agreed from the start that LGPL is a better choice for libraries. Even Stallman before he changed his mind.
If you want to avoid bureaucracy, permissive license is your best choice.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View PostGecko is GPL.
LibreOffice was GPL (now LGPL).
Comment
-
Originally posted by ryao View PostThe LGPL cannot be used to force a project to change licenses. That is something that Richard Stallman has done in the past with projects that depended upon GPL-licensed libraries. It is also why there are not many GPL-licensed libraries in use today.
I certainly agree that libraries/components are a poor fit for GPL, in my opinon GPL serves it's purpose mainly when it comes to 'complete' works, like full applications/solutions. Incidentally this is also where GPL is most prevalent. Different licences serve different needs.
Comment
-
Originally posted by XorEaxEax View PostIf a project uses a GPL licenced library then the rest of the project has to be using a GPL compatible licence, these are licence conditions, not something Richard Stallman personally enforces.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View PostI understood the discussion as being about strong copyleft licenses like the GPL and more permissive licenses like the BSD license. This is why I listed LGPL software too.
In any case... MPlayer is GPL. Gecko is GPL. Gnumeric is GPL. Abiword is GPL. LibreOffice was GPL (now LGPL). FFmpeg is GPL. x264 is GPL.
Some of them are also licensed under LGPL, MPL, or other licenses, but none of them is BSD.
Originally posted by XorEaxEax View PostIf a project uses a GPL licenced library then the rest of the project has to be using a GPL compatible licence, these are licence conditions, not something Richard Stallman personally enforces. Just like he can't force anyone to licence their code under GPL to begin with.
I certainly agree that libraries/components are a poor fit for GPL, in my opinon GPL serves it's purpose mainly when it comes to 'complete' works, like full applications/solutions. Incidentally this is also where GPL is most prevalent. Different licences serve different needs.
The use of the GPL license for the readline library led to the creation of the editline library, which is a BSD-licensed drop-in replacement.
Comment
Comment