[Mono-list] The viral license problem (was System.CodeDom.Compiler
Fri, 24 May 2002 01:41:46 -0400 (EDT)
Cant you do something like release mcs under gpl giving special exception
to mono's CodeDom implementation thats released under X11?
On Thu, 23 May 2002, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Yes, but the GPL is not any more "viral" than a license from Microsoft
> which limits your ability to use their code (e.g. their shared source
> This is why the GPL is almost never used for libraries. Under Linux,
> libraries are usually LGPL or X11. That way linking is allowed.
> Indeed, the FSF recommends that you *not* use the GPL for libraries unless
> you are writing a library that has unique functionality, and you want to
> give an advantage to free software (that's from their website).
> I can't think of a single library that has this GPL problem you describe.
> Also, even if you do really breach the GPL (say that you copy GPL code) ,
> your code isn't GPL'd automatically. No one can do that. Rather, there
> is a conflict that has to be resolved. One solution is to simply remove
> the GPL code (yes, in the case of linking the issue is more difficult, but
> that's precisely why people DON'T release libraries under the GPL).
> On Thu, 23 May 2002, Brad Wilson wrote:
> > James Michael DuPont wrote:
> > > I bet you they would say that the System.CodeDOM.* should all be only
> > > available under the GPL.
> > > The FSF might say that you should not support the CodeDOM at all. This is
> > > the exact same type of problem that I have with then introspector project.
> > Yes, there's a much larger problem here that hasn't been addressed.
> > As a software author, I may not be consciously targeting Mono. After all,
> > one of the driving forces behind Mono is to be able to run code that was
> > written for Microsoft's .NET implementation unchanged. What if I write code
> > that calls CodeDOM? You can't force me to release my code under GPL, just
> > because some end user plugged my code into Mono instead of MS .NET.
> > In general, releasing libraries under GPL is a big problem when those
> > libraries are hooked together at runtime instead of compile time, and are
> > intended to replace a library released under a non-GPL license. You can't
> > realistically prove that the author intended it to be used with your GPL'd
> > library.
> > When people say that the GPL license is "viral", this is precisely the
> > problem they mean.
> > Brad
> > --
> > Read my web log at http://www.quality.nu/dotnetguy/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mono-list maillist - Monofirstname.lastname@example.org
> > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
> Mono-list maillist - Monoemail@example.com