Licensing ambiguities with GPL and LGPL

Simo Sorce idra at
Sat Dec 22 18:37:29 GMT 2001

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 Team

More information about the samba-technical mailing list