🚀 go-pugleaf

Gregory Propf (propf@zeus.towson.edu) wrote:
: I'm the guy that started this thread and I'm still confused.  I am now
: told that libc.a is *not* a GNU library under Linux?!?!  What's all
: this about the 'vendor' libraries.  Are you guys telling that the
: libraries were not written by the GNUs?  If so who does write the
: lib*.a stuff under Linux?  Does Torvalds himself hand code the stuff
: in 32-bit assembler.  I would like to get a real answer to this before
: I start working.  I'd hate to write something for the market and then
: be forced to make it free because I used a few library functions.

This can never happen. You can be forced to modify your program
not to use copyrighted code but you cannot be forced to make your
code free. I doubt that you would have any problem. The LGPL does
not prevent you from selling code linked with libraries. It does allow
reverse engineering of such code but that is generally only a problem
for large companies.

: This is one case where I think Microsquash has it all over the FSF.
: When I learned to code in C I went out and bought Quick-C 2.something.
: It cost me about $60 and considering that I only had a 286 it was
: fine.  I wrote thousands of lines of code with that thing.  In the
: docs they basically tell you that you are free to do wahtever you want
: with the libraries.  You can link to them to your heart's content and
: then you sell your code or your binaries or you can post it on the net
: and give it away free.  They don't care what you do with them.  The
: assumption is that people buy compilers to write code and then they
: will likely sell it.  They would not sell you a compiler that you
: could only use if you paid them royalties.  And this is Microsquash
: we're talking about here.  Not exactly the most humanitarian bunch of
: people.  The FSF should put their libraries out under a similar
: licence (or anti-licence if you like)

To some degree I think you are correct. It would be cleaner if the
restrictions on code created with GNU tools were similar to those
with commercial compilers. As a practical matter it should not make
any difference. For the most part the LGPL restriction ought to apply
to all code. No one should be allowed to publicly distribute code and ban
people from reverse engineering it. However its practical consequences
are to cause some companies to avoid GNU code completely and to spread fear
and paranoia among people like you. 

Paul Budnik