Steve Wampler wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
>
>>...
>>I guess you might be able to show that a given closed-source
>>application depends on the GPL ODBC driver if it uses
>>PostgreSQL-specific SQL/features and doesn't work for some reason with
>>the current LGPL ODBC driver. Still seems like a bit of a stretch.
>
>
> (IANAL, but apparently I just played one on TV.)
>
> If your application links in GPL-code then you can *only* distribute
> it under the GPL, at least according to the last GPL package provider
> I've occasion to talk with at length).
>
> This means that your closed source application is in violation of
> the GPL once you distribute it. There are ways around this
> that *may* get closed under GPL3 (and are generally too ugly anyway).
>
> What I don't grok (sorry, sci-fi freak) is how dual-licensed
> packages work. That is, if package A has both a GPL and non-GPL
> license, but links (internally) GPL'd package B, how *can* package
> A be distributed under the non-GPL license?
>
> -Steve
The original license grantor can do whatever he wants with it. This
actually came up on that bastion of intelligence, slashdot (heh) recently.
Take a look at DSML:
http://www.dsmltools.org/licensing.html
They actually use a GPL/MPL hybrid license. The advantage is that you
can take changes committed and integrate them into your closed-source
product or you can make your own closed source changes that don't get
contributed back.
Another tack used with game engines is to LGPL the code of the game
engine and then close the license on the artwork and datafiles
themselves. See Crystalspace3d for an example of that.
http://www.crystalspace3d.org/tikiwiki/tiki-view_articles.php
But in the end it boils down to the fact that the original creator sets
the terms. You agree to those terms when you download the code.
--
John E. Vincent
