Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GPLv2 Libraries — Is There a Point?

Posted by kdawson on from the spirit-of-the-license dept.

PiSkyHi writes "I understand that if I build an application that links with a library that is licensed under GPLv2, I must also make my application GPL2. I can see that value in this for an application. But for a library, what's to stop me separating my program into a GPLv2-compliant client app that talks to the rest of my (choose my own license) application?"

1 of 585 comments (clear)

  1. Re:GPL Fanatics by Daengbo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    the one with the BSD'd kernel (Mac OS) has the second biggest

    The kernel is Darwin, not BSD.

    Darwin is built around XNU, a hybrid kernel that combines the Mach 3 microkernel, various elements of BSD (including the process model, network stack, and virtual file system),[5] and an object-oriented device driver API called I/O Kit.[1]

    Darwin uses the APSL, not the BSD license. The APSL is a share-alike license*, making it much closer to the GPL than to the BSD.

    Further, your share estimates only cover the desktop, not servers.

    * "If You Externally Deploy Your Modifications, You must make Source Code of all Your Externally Deployed Modifications either available to those to whom You have Externally Deployed Your Modifications, or publicly available."

    --
    Put identity in the browser.