Licensing ambiguities with GPL and LGPL

[John Malmberg]

Simo Sorce wrote:

> 
> So long you do not need libsmbclient to run and you do not
> distribute it you are not held responsible of nothing.
> (Or anyone would be able to make a GPL library that link
> with such a software and claim you to release the whole
> software under GPL terms even on the most proprietary system
> of the world).


But software does not need to be linked against a shared library
to run it's routines.


The software that can do so, just needs either a script or an
initialization file set up.

The suppliers of the software supply neither, but provide the
instructions on how to do so with any syscall or shared image.


In short, from the point of view of these types of applications, there 
really is no difference between a syscall and a shared image.


But the GPL FAQ that you referenced specifically differentiates from that.

And the GPL FAQ is not as well known as the GPL, since it is not usually 
supplied with GPL'd software.

So it is very easy for someone to violate the licensing conditions for 
libsmbclient that default under the GPL and not have any idea that they 
were doing so.

-John
wb8tyw at qsl.network
Personal Opinion Only