On Sep 25, 7:41 pm, "Francesco S. Carta" <entul...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.com>, on 25/09/2010 22:36:43, wrote:
On 09/25/10 10:31 PM, Joshua Maurice wrote:
As ?? Tiib put it else-thread, I think your complaints do not
apply. Presumably, you use GNU gcc or GNU Make on some
platforms, and offhand both are GNU GPL. However, that doesn't
force your product built with GNU gcc and GNU Make to be GNU GPL.
What you build with is irrelevant, it's what you link with that
causes license problems.
Once we are there, I'd like to ask a somewhat silly question, just
Assume I have some GPL code and I make an executable out of it,
I'm only expected to provide the license and the source code of
that binary, that should not affect the licensing of any other
executable that "uses" the GPL executable by calling it and using
its output, even if I happen to ship all of it together in a
single installer, is this interpretation correct?
To put it in other words, take this as the content of an installer:
proprietary_program.exe (calls gpl_program.exe depends on its
The fact that I ship all the above with a single installer does not
affect the licensing of proprietary_program.exe, which can be left
fully copyrighted and closed source, am I right?
(I know this is not a lawyers' lounge, I'm just asking for some
common sense interpretations)
IANAL neither. AFAIK it seems it is done how you describe it
sometimes. There may be some thin nuances of course, who knows.