[rescue] OT: Linux and USB on Intel

[Curtis H. Wilbar Jr.]

>From: Jeffrey Nonken <jeff_work at nonken.net>
>To: The Rescue List <rescue at sunhelp.org>
>Subject: Re: [rescue] OT:  Linux and USB on Intel
>Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:27:02 -0400
>
>I've seen this argument get bounced back and forth for days now, and
>several people seem to be missing a point. I'll try to lay it out clearly.
>
>"If I write my own code, etc., I can license it any way I want."
>
>True. But keep in mind: If you write in C, chances are pretty gosh darned
>good that you'll be using functions from the C library. Console I/O, disk
>I/O, sorting, string manipulation -- you name it.

Most code is dynamically linked....  I'd imagine the licensing issues
would be more around static linking....

>
>If you link in somebody's C library YOU ARE SUBJECT TO THE LICENSE TERMS OF
>THAT LIBRARY. Period.
>
>If that C library has a GNU license, guess what?

There are two GNU licenses... the GPL and the LGPL... as far as I
understand it, the LGPL was greated due to some of the problems that
people are getting at here in the GPL.

The GLIBC is LGPL... the license can be found here:

http://www.gnu.org/manual/glibc-2.2.5/html_node/Copying.html#Copying

Now, I scanned this, and can't give a definative yes/no on how this effects
work using the GLIBC library.... and I'm not interested in reading it
word for word to answer this, ad I'm not in desparate need of the answer
(currently :-) ).

Issues regarding use of .h files, static vs dynamic linking, amount of
library code used, etc all appear in the license as decision points on
how/if the LGPL applies.

Maybe someone more versed here can give the magic insight in regards to this
topic, so this thread won't ramble on forever.

I myself an not particularly fond of the GPL/LGPL and similar licenses as
how I use/distribute/etc is never (IMHO) an easy thing to determine... it
involves reading and interpreting the license, etc.

One of my "favorite" license issues is Sleepycat BerkeleyDB.  You can do
whatever you want if your use of it is that of a service....  so service
products can do whatever you want... but if you decide to create and
distribute a product that uses BerkeleyDB (even if the same manner as a
service product) requires a license... at least it was easty to figure out
and get the answer....  reading the GPL/LGPL always has made my head spin...
I usually come up with more questions than answers.

Hopefully someone can shed some light... I'd hate to see this thread
go on for ages (makes my head spin :-) ).

>
>So: Your choices are: 1) Find another library that has license terms you
>can live with. 2) Roll your own. 3) Entirely leave out all functionality
>that requires any of the functions in that library. 4) Forget it. 5)
>Violate the terms of the license.
>
>---
>Ever notice how fast Windows runs?  Neither did I ...
>_______________________________________________
>rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue

-- Curt