Re: Clarification on GPL

[Raju Mathur <raju@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>>>> "Sudhakar" == Sudhakar Chandra <thaths@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

    Sudhakar> Sandip Bhattacharya proclaimed:
    >> 1. Does any software based on a library, which is under GPL(not
    >> LGPL), have to be released under GPL too? Even if the GPLed
    >> library is nor part of the software distribution, but is marked
    >> required in the installation instructions. I mean the user is
    >> asked to install the library separatly?

    Sudhakar> The software which links against a GPL-ed library is
    Sudhakar> required to be GPL-ed too.  This is the viral nature of
    Sudhakar> GPL at work.

True, though I personally am not aware of any GPL'd libraries.
However I must admit that such a thing is theoretically possible.

    >> 2. Secondly, does GPL expect that the software is not modified
    >> and redistributed either in a more-restrictive or a
    >> less-restrictive license?
    >> 
    >> e.g. If I make a software using GPL stuff, do I have the right
    >> to distribute it under a BSDish license?(my personal
    >> favorite-true "freedom" ;)

    Sudhakar> Not possible.  GPL does not allow relicensing.  IIRC,
    Sudhakar> BSD is the only license that allowes relicensing under a
    Sudhakar> different license.  You can also take software in the
    Sudhakar> public domain and relicense it under your favorite
    Sudhakar> license.

That's what MS did... I agree with you, the BSD license sucks.
*grinning, ducking and running*

    Sudhakar> Thaths

-- Raju
-- 
Raju Mathur          raju@xxxxxxxxxxxxx           http://kandalaya.org/