[Qt-interest] LGPL compliance poll

[BRM]

----- Original Message ----
> From: Arnold Krille <arnold at arnoldarts.de>
> To: qt-interest at trolltech.com
> Sent: Fri, October 1, 2010 2:01:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [Qt-interest] LGPL compliance poll
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Friday 01 October 2010 17:04:35 BRM wrote:
> > > From:  Arnold Krille <arnold at arnoldarts.de>
> > > For  applications there is actually no difference between GPL and  LGPL.
> >  That depends on how the applications interface. The LGPL concerns itself
> >  entirely with how they interface.
> > If you use an LGPL application inside  your close-source application then
> > there is still the same difference  between the GPL and LGPL.
> 
> "Apps" as in stand-alone-binary ready to  execute. And as such there is no 
> difference in LGPL-apps and GPL-apps as you  can not link to apps (at least not 
>
>
> with sane results). So the practical  results for distributing apps is the same 
>
>
> on LGPL and GPL.

I believe MSVC will do some weird things and let you link against executable 
applications - not libraries.
Partially b/c it does treat executable applications (*.exe) as libraries for 
some things - e.g. resources - icons, strings, etc.
So yes, you can have a stand-alone-binary ready to execute that can be linked 
dynamically by another application.

Most platforms, however, do forbid that kind of thing; so it is rather an 
atypical thing particular to Windows.

> > > The only occasion where  you are allowed to use  GPL-libraries without
> > > your becoming  GPL is when that app is only used within  the
> > > firm/business  unit that
> > > 
> > > wrote it in the first place. Which means  when  the app isn't sold.
> > > On a side-note: This is the reason  some folks invented  the AFL for
> > web-apps...
> > 
> >  Doesn't have anything to do with selling. I can sell you a copy of a
> >  closed-source application that utilizes GPL code so long as I do not
> >  _distribute_ the actual application to you.
> > As soon as I distribute the  application the GPL license kicks in; until
> > then I am free to do what I  please.
> 
> Selling me a copy of an app _is_ distribution. Selling me your  work 
> programming the app (when you don't keep a copy of the source or at  least do 
> not sell/distribute it to others) makes it my property and the  exception I 
> stated above applies.

I could sell you the Brooklyn Bridge without distributing it to you. GPL is only 

invoked on distribution.
I could also sell you software without distributing it to you.

Not saying how useful such a sale would be, just that it is possible - both 
technically and legally;
though in most cases it would likely be considered fraud there are 
non-fraudulent ways to do so.

For example, I write software for my own in-house use that utilizes GPL code; 
you buy my company - thus implicity buying a copy of the software. Yet I still 
have not distributed it to you; but you now have full ownership and license.

Ben