[PD] gpl vs creative commons

Hans-Christoph Steiner hans at eds.org
Tue Jan 29 17:01:06 CET 2008

On Jan 29, 2008, at 10:05 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:

> Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>> On Jan 29, 2008, at 3:08 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>>> but i really don't know
>>> mfga.sd
>>> IOhannes
>> 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.

Yes, and they are also technically in violation of the GPL, AFAIK.  I  
imagine that Linus and the FSF has not enforced it because it could  
be counterproductive.



Terrorism is not an enemy.  It cannot be defeated.  It's a tactic.   
It's about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and  
expect we're going to win that war.  We're not going to win the war  
on terrorism.        - retired U.S. Army general, William Odom

More information about the Pd-list mailing list