Licenses...

[Aahz Maruch]

In article <SpY1dCA7Ctr3EwsH at jessikat.demon.co.uk>,
Robin Becker  <robin at jessikat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <37AE9B42.4DF40758 at lemburg.com>, M.-A. Lemburg
><mal at lemburg.com> writes
>...
>>If you link against a GPLed product (even if it's done dynamically!),
>>the whole construction (your product + the GPLed one) automatically
>>fall under the GPL. This means that you can still sell and distribute
>>your product, but only if you include the full source code of
>>the GPLed product
>>*plus* your product.
>
>Oh dear; I wrote this extension called dll for Tcl that allows tcl code
>to link to arbitrary dll's. The source code for the extension is
>available. Must I distribute source for all known GPL'd products which
>can be linked to tcl using this extension. As it happens this thing is
>mostly used by win32ers, but it has run under Linux.

IANAL, but I believe that it's only distribution of a package that
triggers these clauses.  Thus, as long as you only distribute your own
code, you are only responsible for your license plus the licenses of
whatever packages you *need* in order for your package to be used; you
are not responsible for downstream uses of your package.
--
                      --- Aahz (@netcom.com)

Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het    <*>      http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6  (if you want to know, do some research)