[PD] gpl vs creative commons
IOhannes m zmoelnig
zmoelnig at iem.at
Tue Jan 29 16:05:42 CET 2008
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2008, at 3:08 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>> but i really don't know
> Dynamically linked libraries also trigger the GPL. For example, most
yeah; i wanted to stress that shipping a patch with abstraction
dependencies could even be considered as static linking - because people
seem to think that static linking enforces the GPL more than dynamic
linking. (which does say nothing about whether this is true)
> Linux kernel modules are dynamically linked into the kernel these
> days, and they definitely required to be GPL.
but there _are_ non-GPL'ed kernel-modules.
even though they are disliked.
More information about the Pd-list