gpgme license

marius aamodt eriksen marius at
Wed Jul 24 18:57:02 CEST 2002

* Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann at> [020724 10:24]:

> This is wrong.  Your code is never tainted by the GPL.  You can always keep
> whatever licenses you want for your code.  If you create a derived, combined
> work, that consists of the work of somebody else's GPL code and your own,
> then this combined work is subject to the terms of the GPL.  But such a
> combined work is not *YOUR* source anymore, it is the combination of yours
> and other people's work.  You seem to want to have your cake and eat it, too.
> Sorry, but the goal of Free Software is not to make hoarders happier.
> The GPL provides a mutual agreement of sharing.  We share, you share,
> that's the deal.  The deal is not, we give, you take.  (This "you" is
> impersonal.  I don't mean necessarily you personally, but whoever wants to
> include the code in proprietary software).

well, the problem then becomes if i want to use a GPLed library in my
code, it is considered a shared work.  even if i have not mucked with
any source code from the GPLed library, i just use its interfaces.
all the source clearly I wrote, but by linking it with the GPLed
library, the freedom i assigned to my own code is taken away.  the
LGPL solves this problem.  clearly the library itself has its own
protections that it wants, but the code that uses the library is not
affected by it.  in short, in terms of sharing; if someone makes a
modification to the library itself, it has to be shared as under the
GPL conditions, but the application that uses the library is not under
such restrictions.  effectively if modifications are made to that
application, no GPLed code is touched, and no license offended.  that
is why i like the LGPL.  it separates code by interfaces as such.


> marius at >

More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list