[rescue] OT: Linux and USB on Intel

Lionel Peterson lionel4287 at yahoo.com
Sat Apr 26 13:35:11 CDT 2003

--- Jeffrey Nonken <jeff_work at nonken.net> wrote:
> I've seen this argument get bounced back and forth for days now, and
> several people seem to be missing a point. I'll try to lay it out
> clearly.
> "If I write my own code, etc., I can license it any way I want."
> True. But keep in mind: If you write in C, chances are pretty gosh
> darned good that you'll be using functions from the C library.
> Console I/O, disk I/O, sorting, string manipulation -- you name it.
> If you link in somebody's C library YOU ARE SUBJECT TO THE LICENSE
> If that C library has a GNU license, guess what?

The Gnu GPL covers *modification* of the GPL-protected software - if
you change the C library functions, your argument is 100% correct.

If I use use Gnu C compliler to develop a program to manage my greeting
card shop, once compiled, that software is not "tainted" by my use of
GPL software. If I customize a C library routine to accomodate, say, a
printer that puts personalized greetings on mylar balloons, then my
changes to the C library *are* tainted by the GPL.

Sorry for the delayed posting, but I've been trying to avoid this
topic... I finally gave in.


"Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten
programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software"
Bill Gates, in "An OpenLetter to Hobbyists" dated February 3, 1976

Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

More information about the rescue mailing list