[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[task #16088] Submission of datestamp

From: Ineiev
Subject: [task #16088] Submission of datestamp
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 04:40:05 -0500 (EST)
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:95.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/95.0

Follow-up Comment #24, task #16088 (project administration):

[comment #23 comment #23:]
> 1. My package isn't LPPL'ed. I was releasing it with GPLv3 only.

To be precise, "GPL version 3 or (at your option) any later version".  If you
link your GPL'ed program with a GPL-incompatible software, you should provide
a permission,

Your users still won't be able to combine your program with third-party
software released under the GPL.

> 2. As far as I understand it (I might be wrong); the kernel is loaded at
every compile from 2020+. Even the next part of your comment sounded a bit
strange to me. Let's say I have source-code for program `i' stored in file
`' written in language `xyz'. Now the `' needs to be compiled with
the xyz compiler in order to get `i.pqr' file which is our actual `program'
that runs. As far as I understand it, without the compiler one wouldn't get
the program. So how is the source-code not dependent on the compiler?

The GPL isn't written in terms of dependencies, it has requirements for
derived works.   The program isn't combined with the code of the compiler
(i.e. LuaTeX), so they don't make a larger program that would qualify as a
derived work.

> In the LaTeX-scenario if the kernel is loaded (and loading it is a strict
requirement) at every compile, then why won't you call it a dependency?

If I understood it correctly, the kernel and your program form a larger
"executable", so the GPL applied to your program should cover that combination
as whole (unless you add a special permission to link with the kernel).


Reply to this item at:


  Message sent via Savannah

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]