Licensing ambiguities with GPL and LGPL

[Simo Sorce]

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 11:39:29AM -0600, John Malmberg wrote:
> 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.
> 

There are many people that break laws not knowing they are doing so, can you blaw the law for that? Or the people that made the law?



-- 
Simo Sorce       idra at samba.org
-------------------------------
Samba Team http://www.samba.org