[OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries

Tue May 5 13:23:47 PDT 2009

On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 10:09:50PM +0200, Cuinet Jérôme wrote:
> I'm curious and I have seen the GNU libc license, and it's obviously GPL.

It's not GPL, it's LGPL.

 "Released under the GNU Lesser General Public License, glibc is free software." 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_C_Library

> According to this thread, if I have well understood the GPL, all software 
> linked with glibc are licensed under GPL ?

If glibc was GPL, yes. 

> I had seen  
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#PortProgramToGL wich  
> suggest that a lib such as glibc is under LGPL. But the license text of  
> glibc is well the GPL, with the last paragraph : "This General Public  
> License does not permit incorporating your program into
> proprietary programs."

Where are you getting the license text of glibc that it says this?
I can't find a license file which indicates this.

>
> What I have missed ?
>
>
> Jérôme
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "P Kishor" <punk.kish at gmail.com>
> To: "OSGeo Discussions" <discuss at lists.osgeo.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 7:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries
>
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Christopher Schmidt
> <crschmidt at crschmidt.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 11:55:47AM -0500, P Kishor wrote:
> ..
>>>
>>> Thanks Dan (and Christopher and others), I see the distinction now
>>> between GPL and LGPL. However, I am reading the actual GPL text and
>>> its extensive FAQ, instead of Wikipedia's interpretation of it, to try
>>> and sift through all the variations and exceptions to better
>>> understand this now. Hopefully I will come out better informed from
>>> this process. In the meantime, the distinction that you point out
>>> between GPL and LGPL makes sense.
>>
>> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL
>>
>> "The combination itself is then available under those GPL versions."
>>
> ..
>
> This actually gets even more clear as mud... from the para above the
> link provided above, we have the following --
>
> ----
> Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered  
> plug-in?
>
> It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. For instance, if
> the program uses only simple fork and exec to invoke and communicate
> with plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license
> of the plug-in makes no requirements about the main program.
>
> If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function
> calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a
> single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main
> program and the plug-ins. In order to use the GPL-covered plug-ins,
> the main program must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible
> free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed
> when the main program is distributed for use with these plug-ins.
>
> If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication
> between them is limited to invoking the ‘main’ function of the plug-in
> with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline
> case.
>
> Using shared memory to communicate with complex data structures is
> pretty much equivalent to dynamic linking.
> ----
>
> So, the above question is possibly closer in spirit to the OP that
> started this thread. Can I create a commercial (and ostensibly closed
> source, although that closed-source-ness of the program was not asked
> for by the OP) program with "LGPL GIS SDK or library". The answer
> would be yes. But, the answer would be yes with GPL as well, but then
> we would get into whether or not the result would be open or closed
> source, and what the license of the result would be. Yes, I muddied
> the issue a bit by using the example of ShapeLib, but, perhaps that is
> a good thing, because it does illustrate the need for thinking it
> through carefully... what are we doing with the GPL program? Are we
> linking? Are we doing a "simple fork and exec"? Do we have some other
> borderline case?
>
> Once again, the clearest advice would be -- if you think you have the
> possibility of creating a business that is based on software worth
> protecting its source, and yet want to use other free software, pony
> up some cash up-front and get a real lawyer to advice you. Don't
> listen to folks on mailing lists or read wikipedia articles... invest
> in a lawyer. Otherwise, take the easy way out and stay free.
>
> I actually quite like GPL's philosophy -- it doesn't restrict at all
> what I do with GPLed software. It only stops me from restricting
> others.
>
> Puneet.
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Christopher Schmidt
Web Developer