[Olsr-dev] olsrd 0.5.5 released

[Andreas Tønnesen]

Henning Rogge wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2008 9:02 PM, Andreas Tønnesen <(spam-protected)> wrote:
>   
>> On Feb 9, 2008 7:45 PM, Bernd Petrovitsch <(spam-protected)> wrote:
>> I never understood the linking-to-GLP-code issue the way that Holger(and others)
>> seem to do.
>> Dynamic linking trough a user-edited configuration file cannot really be
>> controlled in any way. So as long as we do not:
>> I Link to the plugin statically
>> II Load the plugin by default(default config)
>> I really would never have figured this to be a problem. Yes, a GPL plugin
>> is distributed with the olsrd source, but so what? We do not use it/link
>> to it per-se. The user can change the olsrd configuration in a way that
>> causes the library to be loaded, but that is really the users problem...
>> (AFAIK the quagga plugin is not loaded by default)
>>
>> Am I wrong about this? Can a BSD application NOT include a GPL licensed
>> shared library in the source distribution??
>>     
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins
>
> Can I apply the GPL when writing a plug-in for a non-free program?
>
>     If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the
> plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main program
> makes no requirements for them. So you can use the GPL for a plug-in,
> and there are no special requirements.
>
>     If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function
> calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a
> single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main
> program and the plug-ins. This means that combination of the
> GPL-covered plug-in with the non-free main program would violate the
> GPL. However, you can resolve that legal problem by adding an
> exception to your plug-in's license, giving permission to link it with
> the non-free main program.
>
> Henning
>   

Thanks for your reply Henning.

But what you are saying here does not really confirm that there is
a problem with the olsrd release AFAICS. I agree that once you
actually _load_ the shared lib the licensing issues becomes actual
issues(and RMS can sue you :-) ), but I really cannot see that releasing
a source tarball with a BSD-licensed application and a GPL-licensed
shared-library that _could_ be linked to by the app, if the user edits
the configuration, causes any real problems...

I'm not in any way an expert(and of cause IANAL), I just don't see the
real problem with the release.

- Andreas