The Linux kernel is GPLed and if code from the kernel is used in an app, that app must be GPLed as well. (GPL 2:b.) And of course, if you make modifications to the kernel they are GPLed as well. However, code from the libraries linked in compiling Linux are, for the most part, distributed under the LGPL for libraries which states that apps which link code in LGPLed libraries are not bound by any license other than those the developer chooses. So a developer may use LGPLed libraries (such as the gnu c libraries commonly used when compiling Linux) without being legally bound in anyway to release the source of the app.
In other words GPL is "viral," as they say, and LGPL isn't. And of course, proprietary software exists for Linux and is welcomed by the Linux community. We simple feel that proprietary software development models aren't as promising as OSS development.
Check out copyleft. There are links to both licenses. They contain legal jargon but are still intelligible to we common men;-)
This is misleading.
;-)
The Linux kernel is GPLed and if code from the kernel is used in an app, that app must be GPLed as well. (GPL 2:b.) And of course, if you make
modifications to the kernel they are GPLed as well. However, code from the libraries linked in compiling Linux are, for the most part, distributed under the LGPL for libraries which states that apps which link code in LGPLed libraries are not bound by any license other than those the developer chooses. So a developer may use LGPLed libraries (such as the gnu c libraries commonly used when compiling Linux) without being legally bound in anyway to release the source of the app.
In other words GPL is "viral," as they say, and LGPL isn't. And of course, proprietary software exists for Linux and is welcomed by the Linux
community. We simple feel that proprietary software development models aren't as promising as OSS development.
Check out copyleft. There are links to both licenses. They contain legal jargon but are still intelligible
to we common men
-Daniel