• 0

GPL and load-time linking (DLLs)


Question

I need some info about using DLLs made of GPL'd code. So I need to release the source code of the project, that'd make use of such a DLL?

I'm asking because I'm likely going to fork some project to do my own work on it, but keep it as DLL. But I don't want to release the code of the application making use of that DLL.

HELP?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Be careful. There are two different kinds of GPLed code. There's the kind that IDGAF is talking about (that's actually the Lesser General Public License). If your app uses code or DLLs that are under the main GPL license, then yes you need to release the source code.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

dannysmurf,

Please provide a link to the document/webpage that backs up your claim. I have never seen an alternate GPL.

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

Part 0 does not contain anything about open sourcing required by using a DLL. It's actually encouraged to copy and use other people's software, so long as it is not changed. Specifically, the place where you got the DLL should link to the actual license (or it should be included with the DLL).

I would stipulate that because his work doesn't include the source code for the DLL in any way, he would not be required to open source his project.

But, I am not a lawyer and I don't open source much (either write or use).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

exactly as dannysmurf sais:

GPL(license): what ever you do, link/use/include - you have to release the code.

LGPL(license): if you incorporate, you have to release the code. If you simply link, no!

btw. if you are going to fork a project wich is (L)GPL you will have to release the source anyway, as forking includes the use and modification of already existing.

this is exactly why mostly for libs-only the LGPL is used. If the author intends not to force people using that lib having to release their source.

kindest regards,

Moritz "neofeed" Angermann

edit: links for IDGAF, www.gnu.org -> licenses

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I don't care about releasing the source of forked project, I rather care about the client that's going to sit on top of it.

Can I do bull**** like this?

Client <-> LGPL middle layer <-> GPL code

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

No you can't.

as the LGPL middle layer would have to have a special grant from the one who developed the GPL code. That would allow it to use a different license to the GPL code ( dual licesense )

GPL <-> GPL <-> GPL works

ANY <-> LGPL <-> LGPL/GPL works (dual licensed )

ANY <-> LGPL <-> LGPL works

as it looks you have to release your source as GPL'ed code. Or do not use the GPL'ed code.

kindest regards,

Moritz "neofeed" Angermann

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Well, I can't start work on the client before Longhorn beta 1. The alpha sucks for development. If I can polish my coding style by then, I wouldn't mind releasing the client as source code either. Otherwise I could try to talk to the developer to change the license. He's planning to stop development on that library, so maybe he's open for talks.

--edit: Bears the question, can I dual license the middle layer?

Edited by Tom Servo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I don't even see how the GPL could be applied to a library because the GPL applies to derivative works (works that include exact or partial pieces of code).

Am I thinking about this correctly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Tom Servo: You can ask him to dual license his lib. if he does you can use it as the licens would grant.

You can license your software what ever you want it to license. be it dual license, tripple license. Or what ever your feel comfortable with. See OSI.

And Codingstyle should not be a reason to NOT release one's source. Open Source is not abotu showoff it's about and idea on how the world should be. Idiology and Philosophy.

IDGAF: No, you can apply the GPL to what ever you want.

#include &lt;stdio.h&gt;
int
main (int argv, char * argv[])
{
  printf ("Hello World\n");
  return 0;
}

I could release this as GPL. So what? if you are going to use this piece of code in your program or if you will link against this programm and I released it as GPL you have to make your tool GPL too. ( this is why some people call the gpl a virus ).

please, don't confuse License, Copyright and Partent as some other people seem to do.

kindest regards,

Moritz "neofeed" Angermann.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I think I might write my own version of the library involved. I rather want everything running under my terms. Since the main client development depends on beta 1 of Longhorn, I've more than plenty of time to write that stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

IRC client :p

I've a stalled version of a .NET 1.1 version of it here. I stopped at it because writing a custom text renderer drove me nuts at the end of the day. And before you even think about suggesting it, no I won't use RichTextBox.

I thought of restarting it for Longhorn. Avalon's document model brings me a more or less nice text renderer on a plate. But since I've updated myself with the guidelines and because of .NET 2.0 I need/want to make lots of changes, so I've to weigh the advantages. With the current library I've an already working system (which is in use in some other IRC related apps I made) that can be extended but is locked in an existing design, the other alternative would be writing it from scratch, possibly resulting in smaller and faster code since it'll be part specialized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I think this discussion (whether or not to use GPL code) may actually be moot (or moo, if you prefer :) ).

IIRC, the license for the Microsoft .NET SDK forbids using it for creating open source software (which would preclude using GPL code by definition). I MAY be wrong about that -- it's been about two years since I actually read the license -- but an editorial I read a while ago on Microsoft vs OSS is sticking in my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.