[Bf-committers] extension clause

Alex Combas blenderwell at gmail.com
Thu Nov 18 03:49:17 CET 2010

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:00 PM, David Jeske <davidj at gmail.com> wrote:

> When I write "extension", I mean: "an add-on which is compiled against and
> dynamic loaded into the address space of another program, but normally
> distributed separately."
> To write a "closed source extension add-on" you have to "link to GPL code
> from a closed source domain (the add-on extension)", you have to "depend on
> details of the GPL code specifically in closed-source", and you have to
> "run
> closed-source code (which is not a system library) in the same process as
> the GPL code".  -- All of which are prohibited by the GPL as far as I can
> see.
> Any code which links to (in process) and depends specifically on details of
> GPL code must be under the GPL. Even if it's a DLL/dso, it still needs to
> be
> under the GPL. That's the purpose of the license. This is the reason glibc
> is under the LGPL, because if every program that linked to glibc had to be
> under the GPL, closed-source programs could not be built with glibc.
> I think this interpretation of the GPL is fairly accepted.

I agree, to my understanding this is how the GPL works.

People often think that the GPL is simply about protecting code from being
stolen and incorporated
into closed-source applications, but really that is just a side benefit of
the GPL.

The major purpose behind the creation of the GPL is to stop GPL code
from working with
non-GPL code, when RMS made the GPL his intention was to destroy the
closed-source development model.

I have nothing against the GPL, it is a good license for certain situations,
but it does have its problems.

More information about the Bf-committers mailing list