🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug20.160023.25707@s1.gov> dwight@s1.gov (Dwight Shih) writes:
>But I'd agree that it would be good for the basic runtime support to be
>completely unencumbered.  Here I'm caught in a morass of mixed emotions.
>If the basic runtime support were unemcumbered by the GPL, then commercial
>developers could reasonably develop multi-platform applications in
>Objective-C and we might see more commercial support for the NeXT.

I think that the GLPL is the appropriate protection to use for object and
class libraries; this is consistent with what FSF has already done and
will avoid confusion by having the same conditions on all Gnu-ish class
libraries.

>BTW, just what does the GLPL say about object source that either
>Is-A or Has-A GLPL object?

The OO concepts "Is-A" and "Has-A" don't matter.  Only the distinctions
that the linker makes between separate modules matters.  All that matters
is the modules and how they are used.  For example, if you use libg++ in a
project, you must distribute source to libg++.  You need not distribute
source to your classes that are inherited from C++ classes (I purposely
didn't say "derived" to avoid confusion with the concept of a derivative
work in copyright law -- it isn't necessarily the same).  If, however, you
make modifications to the source code of any part of libg++, you must
distribute source to those modifications.




--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu