Talk:GPL linking exception
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the GPL linking exception article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Computing Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| Computing Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Untitled discussion
I don't understand the intent of the following sentence. I think it's missing a crucial phrase like "commercial organization", but I don't want to change the meaning. Can it be clarified?
The use of the linking exception permit to develop Java programs built on the GNU Classpath implementation without having to distribute them under the LGPL license.
Gezzas Man 20:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I tried to clarify the sentence a little, what do you think ? Hervegirod 22:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed that part. The exception has actually been introduced to make it possible have a Java toolchain that creates natively compiled binaries, without the resulting programs having to allow re-linking. In particular regarding code that ends up in ROMs, using the LGPL would create problems with compliance with the 'relinking' clause of the LGPL. For that reason, Mono chose MIT/X11 for its libraries, and GNU Classpath went with GPL+linking exception.
The LGPL&Java article had nothing to do with it. The exception predates that by a couple of years, so it can not have played a role in its creation, unless it travelled back in time. ;) Dalibor Topic.
What's the point of this sentence? "There have been complaints that the FSF has been actively discouraging this type of license by not giving it a memorable and short name." The sentence should be deleted unless there is evidence for such a claim. 83.92.119.42 14:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Out of date: Java and GPLv3
As of May 31st 2007, the info about what licence Java has been released under, and what parts of Java have been released, and what is happening with GPLv3, are out of date. Gronky 21:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Improvement Proposal
While I like to consider myself reasonably intelligent and somewhat versed in the legalese of the various Licence versions and variants I think this section screams for a practical example.
Such a section would greatly help us lesser mortals visualise and cenceptualise the key differentiation between including the Linking Exception or omitting it.
Anyone with more knowledge of the issue than me (I'm sure that shouldn't be hard to find) could post an example ehere on the talk page and I'd be happy to add it to the article.
I particularly liked this explanation from Tim Post (assumed name??) which I found [1] and reads thusly:
"What it means, simply, is that you can not apply the GPL on top of code or libraries that are not compatible with the GPL and distribute a compiled combined work, unless you apply a linking exception.
The linking exception provides a way for you to distribute compiled executables containing the non-free bits, while no special permission is needed to distribute the program in source format.
This exception, of course, depends on the non-free libraries allowing you to distribute programs that are linked against it (especially statically).
So, to answer your first question, no .. this is not a 'chicken or egg' scenario. What I recommend is when confronted with the possibility of having to write an exception, its probably better to just choose a license with fewer restrictions, like the Apache or 3 clause BSD license.
Secondly, no, you can't just apply the GPL to your code for the purposes of changing the license for something that you happen to link against. Again, we come back to the linking exception, which is your responsibility to provide.
The spririt of the GPL lives in a world where there is no such thing as proprietary software. RMS has stated this as the eventual goal on many occasions. What remains are practicalities that must be addressed for people who want to distribute free software on non-free platforms.
This is one of the biggest reasons that Linux (as in the Kernel) remains GPL v2 only."
Ssoulakiotis (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Subclassing?
I hate to bring this up (don't ask questions you don't want to know the answer to), but sometimes, especially in Java, people create subclasses or extend library classes. I think this would qualify as linking, because it's just another way of calling the super-class library. If subclassing-as-extension were considered a form of modification, that would open a whole other can of worms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlenPeterson (talk • contribs) 16:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- GPL linking exception applies to that case. I remember having asked this kind of question to FSF some time ago. Hervegirod (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
why actually?
basically what this exceptions say is that MY code which used a (well) defined interface to some GPL code doesnt need to be distributed under GPL.
however it obviously doesnt need to either way .. since linking is not copying or modifying anderfor MY code stays MY code ...
can anyone clear this up? it certainly sounds as if GPL is a serious thread that should be avoided by every developer in any case ...
would be great if anyone could add some judgings in this matter