🚀 go-pugleaf

Myles Williams (williams@martha.utcc.utk.edu) wrote:
> >However the whole GLPL thing has me confused.  I plan to write the
> >thing using statically linked libraries and their header files must be
> >included in the source to make the link work.  Is this sort of thing
> >precluded by the GLPL or not?  The wording is very tricky and I am not

> If the binary does not link with GNU libraries, and none of the source you
> wrote came from GNU programs, then it is clean and you may distribute it
> however you like.

> If you link with GNU libraries, then you are bound to satisfy one of the three
> alternatives in the LGPL.

> Would someone from the FSF please clarify on the use of GNU header files?  I
> have never seen that issue discussed before.  It seems to me that since the
> header files do not translate into machine code in the binary, their copy-
> right has no claim on that binary.

> Myles Williams					I'm not a lawyer.

Hi netters,

I also am interested in this matter. I read the GPL. Now I ask myself,
what happens with commercial programs, that are produced with e.g. gmake.

In this case, I don't need to distribute gmake and its sources to the buyer 
of my commercial program, because I don't incorporate GNU sources. Am I right?

Another question to people from the FSF is: what rights do they have on 
commercial software, that is produced with GNU programs? As I understand
the GPL, this software can be free but must not. I could sell my programs
OR give them to the FSF.

Some people made me uneasy in this point, as they said, that companies
that use GNU programs have to give away all their software.
Even using gawk or perl in any part of the software production process
changes rights on my own product.

Am I right or the others?

Thank you for clarifying this.
Barbara
--
Barbara Nowak-Teufl
E-Mail   : Barbara.Nowak-Teufl@siemens.co.at