26 Jul
2009
26 Jul
'09
7:02 a.m.
Hi,
On Sunday 26 July 2009 09:14:25 Sampo Savolainen wrote:
On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 01:20 +0200, Arnold Krille
wrote:
<snip>
On Sunday 26 July 2009 00:14:45 Sampo Savolainen
wrote:
True, if they have done any
modifications to that "external" part. If
it's only using it (jmusic?) as a library, the license of the library
shouldn't affect the main software. But this has always been a hot topic
with GPL: how to link dynamic / static and how does linking affect the
license of the linkee. The idea behind GPL is that if someone else
modifies the code and
redistributes this work, he must provide the code (under the same
license) for anyone receiving the software. That is the point of the
license.
The main point I remembered from the last thread with
"Impro-Visor" in
the title: It uses gpl software itself. Which means that it has to
publish the modifications of that part at least. Are you assuming the whole of Impro-visor is subject
to GPL as it has
violated the GPL of jmusic?
There is a nice page on the fsf website explaining the differences between gpl
and lgpl for libraries. The basic essence (as far as I understand it) is: If
you want all apps using your lib to be gpl (or free) use gpl for your lib. If
you want more spread against competitors and thus allow closed-source
development using your lib, use lgpl.
So the fact that Improvisor uses (and ships!) the gpl-ed jmusic, this makes
improvisor gpl. Not providing the source for improvisor (not even upon
request) is a violation of the gpl. Everyone has the right to complain about
that, the jmusic guys even have the right to sue against this.
Have fun,
Arnold