GPL and closed source

[Dale]

>Giving someone software under a purported GPL licence without giving them
>dispensations to link with the proprietary libraries makes the GPL pretty
pointless.

I can see now why John mentioned adding a clause to the GPL license to
specifically allow for that

 >It would be better to use a licence that reflects the intended
redistribution terms.
what kind of license for that pupose do you suggest ? For example do BSD or
Artistic  allow linking against a closed source binary without the
restrcitions posed by the GPL?

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:12 AM, David Woolley
<forums at david-woolley.me.uk>wrote:

> Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
>
>  If the question is whether GPL allows GPL'ed code to use functionality
>> provided by libraries under other licenses, the answer is, (a) yes it
>> does and (b) GPL does not fetter a user's freedom to use the GPL'ed
>> code any manner he likes - that includes depending on non-free libraries.
>>
>
> However, copies can only be redistributed if the licences for all the GPLed
> components grant specific permission to link against that proprietary
> library.
>
> Giving someone software under a purported GPL licence without giving them
> dispensations to link with the proprietary libraries makes the GPL pretty
> pointless.  It would be better to use a licence that reflects the intended
> redistribution terms.
>
> I believe you can actually modify and link GPLed code with proprietary code
> when you are not the owner and don't have a dispensation, but you are then
> not allowed to give it to anyone else.
>
>
>
>> Please note that FSF's answer to "Can I write free sfotware that uses
>> non-free libraries" and "What legal issues come UP if I use GPL
>> incompatible lbiraries with GPL software?"
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
>>
>> are mostly technical; not legal. If you read clearly, the text says
>> "please do not do it - write a GPL compatible, free software library".
>>
>>
> "It" here, is issuing a dispensation.
>
> However, note that the intention of the GPL is that most GPLed programs
> should not be the sole intellectual property of the current author.  By
> linking with proprietary libraries, you forego the right to distribute
> versions that are derivatives of other GPLed code.
>
> Note the disputed legal issue is about when a binary program is a
> derivative work of a software library.
>
> --
> David Woolley
> Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
> RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
> that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20110606/38d43c24/attachment.html>