| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
But that's not the pointBut that's not the pointPosted Dec 13, 2008 13:37 UTC (Sat) by dark (✭ supporter ✭, #8483)In reply to: Yes it's the case by gmaxwell Parent article: Free Software Foundation files suit against Cisco for GPL violations The "or not distribute it" choice is the one available here. A program that, when run, links against a shared library that is already present on the user's system does not have to be distributed with that shared library. But the FSF claims that it is still covered by that library's license. That's exactly the point of dispute. This tends not to matter for Linux distributions because they need to provide the library anyway, but it matters for independent software vendors.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||