Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux:35036 comp.os.386bsd.questions:1760 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!husc.harvard.edu!haley Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.questions Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes Message-ID: <haley.735262872@husc.harvard.edu> From: haley@scws4.harvard.edu (Elizabeth Haley) Date: 19 Apr 93 23:41:12 GMT References: <C5qCnn.5Kw@sugar.neosoft.com> <1qugu1$g30@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Nntp-Posting-Host: scws4.harvard.edu Lines: 16 damien@b63519.student.cwru.edu (Damien Neil) writes: >Are you saying that code produced by a GPL compiler is forced to be under the >GPL? If so, you are wrong. I can use gcc to make an application, link in a >GPL'd library, and sell the whole thing for thousands of dollars while keeping >the source code in a locked safe in Siberia. The only restriction the GPL >imposes is that programs that contains actual GPL'd source code must fall under >the GPL. (Note: linking in a library != using source code.) Err... Almost... Making a binary with gcc and selling it sans source is legal, yes. Linking that binary with a GPL'd lib and selling *that* sans source is prohibitted in the *L*GPL... However selling your binary code linked with the GPL'd lib and distributing the source to the GPL'd library lifts this prohibition... There are other particulars, which should be looked up in the *L*GPL. (*'s mine)