From: Sean O'Dell <sean@...>
Date: 2003-07-11T07:43:12+09:00
Subject: Re: My brief and torrid affair with Ruby.

"Paul Brannan" <pbrannan@atdesk.com> wrote in message
news:20030710203215.GB18259@atdesk.com...
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 05:14:18AM +0900, Sean O'Dell wrote:
> > >From what I've read regarding the GPL and libraries:
> >
> > If your program links to a GPL library or application using anything
more
> > than the most generic of mechanisms (such as a stdio pipe), your program
> > must also be GPL.
>
> What about applications that can link with either readline or libedit?
> Must these be GPL because they can be linked with readline?
>
> I've been unable to find the link, but I recall reading that if the
> application *could* be linked to a non-GPL alternative, then the
> application does not have to be licensed under the GPL.  Linus seems to
> take this view with the kernel, since he didn't want to force the GPL on
> drivers written for other OSes that were ported to Linux (though iirc he
> also said this shouldn't be applied to anything other than the kernel).

I think this is noted as a gray area of the GPL, but would be determined on
a case-by-case basis.  My guess here is, whichever looks to be "the default"
will be used to judge; meaning, if you design to link to either library (GPL
and non-GPL), but you distribute an appropriate non-GPL version of the
library, then you're ok.

    Sean