copyright - are version(GPL) libs acceptable?

[Daniel Gibson]

Am 09.06.2011 05:12, schrieb Daniel Gibson:
> Am 09.06.2011 05:04, schrieb Adam D. Ruppe:
>>
>> I've seen other apps do this kind of thing to avoid their code from
>> being GPL. If the user does the final linking, it seems ok.
>>
> 
> Dunno.. probably it's ok as long as no binaries are redistributed.
> I guess in other cases it's more like "if you compile the GPL stuff in
> the whole code is implicitly GPL".

Hmm this could be misunderstood. I meant: If you compile the GPL stuff
in (or link a GPL, *not* LGPL, lib), you have to redistribute the binary
under GPL terms, i.e. you need to provide the source etc.
But it doesn't mean that you have to change the license of the other
source files to GPL - this may in fact be illegal if you don't own the
copyright, but someone else released them under BSD license or something.
So if your rip the GPL stuff out afterwards you should still be able to
distribute the rest of the code unter whatever license you (or the
original author) chose before (like boost for Phobos, BSD license or
whatever).
This implies that the rest of the code uses a license that's compatible
to the GPL - some licenses, like CDDL, are not, even though they're free
software licenses.

But I'm neither an expert on this nor a lawyer, this is just what I've
seen being done in software or read about in articles about licensing
issues.

> But note that GPL != LGPL and linking (shared) LGPL libraries doesn't go
> viral on the program that links them. Fortunately most libraries use
> LGPL and not "normal" GPL.
>