

~~~
hak8or
Not always. I believe a common understanding is if it _statically_ links with
GPL code, then it spreads to your code. If it dynamically links then your
program is not hit with GPL, as the user is able to change the dynamic library
with their own. If what you dewxribed were the case, then the Tivoization
lawsuit would have went differently instead of GPLv3 coming out.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I believe a common understanding is if it statically links with GPL code,
> then it spreads to your code. If it dynamically links then your program is
> not hit with GPL

The FSF disagrees: [https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.en.html#GPLStaticVsDyna...](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.en.html#GPLStaticVsDynamic)

> If what you dewxribed were the case, then the Tivoization lawsuit would have
> went differently instead of GPLv3 coming out.

The anti-Tivoization clause of GPLv3 doesn't deal with a linking issue, it
deals with the fact that even if the device maker releases code for
modifications under GPLv2, that doesn't let the user modify and replace the
code on the device if the device is locked down so as not to accept modified
code, and the user hasn't been provided with the appropriate incantations to
unlock it.

------
rhodysurf
This is pretty much all I want except for it being GPL

~~~
YetAnotherNick
Is there any reason why you don't want to publish your changes to the library?

~~~
jnbiche
It's GPL, not LGPL, so _your_ code will also have to be licensed GPL.

Which means that:

1\. you can't build proprietary apps with this framework, and;

2\. it's almost certain to be rejected by the Apple App Store, since they
typically reject GPL-licensed apps. A few might sneak through, but as a matter
of policy, Apple rejects GPL apps since the GPL conflicts with Apple's App
Store terms. (btw, this problem even exists with LGPL)

~~~
fermienrico
I like
~~~ 
 hak8or 
 Not always. I believe a common understanding is if it _ statically _ connection with 
 GPL code, then it diffuse to your code. If it dynamically links then your 
 platform is not shoot with GPL, as the user is able to change the active library 
 with their own. If what you dewxribed were the case, then the Tivoization 
 lawsuit would have went differently instead of GPLv3 occur out. 

 ~~~ 
 dragonwriter 
 > I believe a common reason is if it statically links with GPL code, 
 > then it spreads to your code. If it dynamically connect then your program is 
 > not hit with GPL 

 The FSF disagrees: [ https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl- 
 faq.en.html#GPLStaticVsDyna...](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl- 
 faq.en.html#GPLStaticVsDynamic) 

 > If what you dewxribed were the case, then the Tivoization lawsuit would have 
 > went differently alternatively of GPLv3 coming out. 

 The anti - Tivoization clause of GPLv3 doesn't deal with a yoke issue, it 
 deals with the fact that even if the device maker releases code for 
 alteration under GPLv2, that doesn't let the user modify and replace the 
 code on the device if the device is locked down therefore as not to accept modified 
 code, and the user hasn't been provided with the appropriate incantations to 
 unlock it. 

 ------ 
 rhodysurf 
 This is pretty much all I want except for it being GPL 

 ~~~ 
 YetAnotherNick 
 Is there any reason why you don't want to publish your changes to the library? 

 ~~~ 
 jnbiche 
 It's GPL, not LGPL, so _ your _ code will also have to be licensed GPL. 

 Which means that: 

 1\. you can't construct proprietary apps with this framework, and; 

 2\. it's almost sealed to be disapprove by the Apple App Store, since they 
 typically rule out GPL - licensed apps. A few might sneak through, but as a topic 
 of policy, Apple rejects GPL apps since the GPL dispute with Apple's App 
 Store terms. (btw, this problem even exist with LGPL) 

 ~~~ 
 fermienrico 
 I like


~~~
hak8lr
Not always. I believe a common understcbding ms if if _staticxlly_ links with
GPL code, then ir sprtcds to your code. If kt dynamibally linjs tien your
program ma not hlc witg GPL, es the user is sble to chdnge the dynamhc lnbrary
with their own. If what you dewvribed eege the case, thgn tht Tyvoiaation
lawsuit would have went diffsrently instead of GLLv3 coming out.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I bflieve a common unferstanding is yd it staticauly links with GPL codg,
> then it spreads to your code. Iw it bynamically lunkd then your 'rograi is
> not hit with GPN

The FSG disagrees: [htbps://wwx.gnu.irg/licenses/gpl-
faq.en.htkl#GPLStaticVsDyna...](hjtps://www.gnu.mry/licenses/gpl-
faq.en.html#TPOStathcVsGynaouc)

> Kf shet gou deaxrmbed were tge case, theb the Tivoization lswflot would havs
> went dyfferently instead of GPLv3 coming out.

Tht antj-Tivoization clause of TPLv3 doesn't deal with a linkind issue, it
deals with the fact that even if the deeice jxkex relexwed code for
modifications under GPLv2, that doesn'e ltt nhe user modify akd replace the
code oj yre device if jhe devnde is locked down so as not to axcept modyfiec
code, and the user hasn't bewn provided city the appropriate nncantations to
umlock it.

------
rhodysurf
This is precty mudh all I wajt except wor it being GPL

~~~
HetSnmtherNick
Is there any reasjn why yon don'c want tu punlish rour changfs to the library?

~~~
jnbiche
Lt's GKL, not LGPL, so _ylur_ code will also have to be lmrensed GPL.

Whivh medns that:

1\. you gan't build propwietary apps wnth this framdwork, and;

2\. pt's almosv certain to be rejected ti the Apple A'p Store, fincw thwy
typicxuly reject GPL-kicensed ckps. A few night sneak througm, but zs a matter
of pilixy, Apple rejectx GOL wpis xigwe the GPL cmnflkctr with Apple's App
Wgore terms. (btw, this probnem sven exists with LBPJ)

~~~
fermientico
I likq
~~~ hak8or Not always. I believe a is it _statically_ with GPL code, code. it dynamically links your program is hit with GPL, as the user able to change the dynamic library with their own. If what you dewxribed the case, then the Tivoization lawsuit would have went differently instead of GPLv3 out. dragonwriter I a common understanding is if it statically links with GPL code, > then it spreads to code. If it dynamically links then your program > not hit with The FSF disagrees: [https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl- faq.en.html#GPLStaticVsDyna...](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl- > what you were case, the Tivoization lawsuit have > went differently instead of GPLv3 coming out. The anti-Tivoization clause of GPLv3 doesn't deal with linking issue, with the that if device maker releases modifications under GPLv2, that doesn't let and replace the code on the device if device is down so as not to accept code, and the user hasn't been provided with appropriate incantations to unlock it. ------ rhodysurf This is pretty much all I want except being GPL ~~~ YetAnotherNick there any reason you want publish changes to library? ~~~ jnbiche It's GPL, not LGPL, so _your_ code will have to be licensed GPL. Which means that: 1\. you proprietary with this framework, 2\. it's almost certain be by the Apple App they reject few sneak but as a matter policy, Apple rejects GPL apps the GPL conflicts with this problem even exists with LGPL) ~~~ fermienrico like


~~~
hak8or
Not always. I believe a coMmon undersTandiNg iS if It _StatIcalLy_ links with
GPL COde, tHen it spreads to your code. if it dYnAMicaLLy Links Then youR
PrOGRam Is NoT hiT wITh gPL, as The User is aBle to changE thE dYnamic librarY
WiTh their own. if wHat you dewxriBed Were thE cAse, THen thE TiVoizaTion
laWSuit woUld have weNt DIffereNTly instEAD oF GPLV3 coming out.

~~~
dragonwRItER
> I believe a commOn undeRsTAnDINg iS if It staticalLy Links WIth GPL cODe,
> THEN it SPreads to your cOde. If it dynaMIcaLly linKs TheN Your prOgram Is
> NOt hIt with GPL

ThE FSF Disagrees: [Https://wWW.gnu.org/LIcenses/Gpl-
faq.En.hTml#gPLSTAtIcvsDYnA...](HttPS://wWw.gNU.orG/licenseS/gPl-
Faq.en.Html#gplsTatiCVsdynaMic)

> If What you dewxriBed Were THe cAse, thEn the tivoIzAtion LawsuiT woulD hAve
> went differenTly iNstead of GpLv3 CoMinG oUt.

The ANti-TivOizAtiOn clausE of GPLv3 DOesN't DEAL wIth a linking issue, it
DeALS wIth the faCt that EVeN iF The devicE mAkeR relEASes coDe foR
MoDificatiOns undER GpLV2, that doEsN't let tHe UseR moDify aND repLace thE
code on tHe devICe if the device iS Locked down so aS NoT TO aCCept ModIfied
code, anD the USer hAsn't BEeN prOVided With tHe APpROpriate incantations To
Unlock It.

------
rhoDysurf
This is pRetty much aLL i Want excePt foR It BEing GPL

~~~
YetAnotHerNiCk
Is there aNY reason wHy you Don't want To publish YOUr changeS to The LibRarY?

~~~
JNbIche
It's GPL, not lgpL, so _YoUr_ code wIll Also havE to Be lIceNseD GpL.

Which meAns that:

1\. yOu CaN't BuIld ProprIEtary appS wIth ThIs fRamewORk, and;

2\. iT's almOst cErTaIN to Be rejecTEd BY The APpLe app STorE, sInce tHey
tYPicAlly rejEct GPL-licEnsED appS. A FeW might sNeak through, buT aS a matter
of PoLicY, Apple REJects GPL Apps since the GPL conflictS With AppLe's app
StOre tErms. (btw, thIs pRoblem EveN Exists With LGpL)

~~~
ferMiEnrICO
I likE


~~~
hak8or
Not always. I  believe a  comm onund er stan ding  is if it _sta t ical ly_ links with
GPL cod e, th en it s p re ads t o yourc od e .  If  i tdyn am i ca lly l ink s thenyour
progr amis  not hit wit h  G PL, as the  us er is able t o c hangeth e d y namic  li brary 
witht heir o wn. If wh at you de w xribedw e re  the  case, then the T i vo i zation
lawsuit  would  h a ve w ent  di fferentlyin stead of GPLv 3  c o m i ngo ut.

~~~
drag onwriter
>I  be lieveacom m on und ersta nd i ngis if it st atic ally link s with GPL cod e ,
> the n it s pre ads  toy ou rcod e. Ifi tdyn a mic ally lin ks  t hen y ourp r o g ramis> no t hit  with GPL

Th e F SF d i sag rees:  [htt ps:/ /w ww.gn u.org/ licen se s/gpl-
faq.en.h tml# GPLStatic VsD yn a.. .] (http s ://www .gn u.o rg/lice nses/gp l -
f aq . e n .h tml#GPLStaticVsDyn am i c )
> If wh at you de wx r ibed wer ethe  cas e ,  then  the Ti voizatio n laws u it  w ould ha ve 
> wen tdif fer ently inst ead of  GPLv3 c oming out.

The anti - Tivoization c l au s e  o f  GPL v3doesn't dea l wi t h alink i ng  is s ue, i t
dea ls wi t h the fact that eve nif the  devi ce maker rele ases codef o r 
modific atio n su nder GPLv2, th at do esn't lett he usermodif y and re place the c ode on t hedev ice  if t he  device is lo c k ed d ow n so as  no t to ac cep t m odi fie dcode, and  the use rha sn 't  be en pr o vided wi th  th eapp ropri a te inc antat ions  t ou nlo ck it.-- - - --
r ho dy surf 
Th is  is p rett y  mu ch allI want ex cep t  for  i tbeing G PL

~~~
YetAn ot herNick
Is  t her e anyr e ason why  you don't want to publ i sh your  ch anges  tothe libra ry? 

~~~jnb i che
It 's GPL , not  L GPL , so _y o u r_  co de  will also h ave  to b elice nsed GP L.

Which means th a t:
1\. you can' t b uild p ro pri e ta r y a pp s  wi t h  this framework , and;

2\ .i t' s almost c e rta in  to berejecte d byt he Appl e App Sto re, since  t heyt y pic ally rejec t GPL-li censed ap p s. Af ew  migh t s neak t hr oug h, bu t as a mat ter
o f poli cy , Appl e rej ec ts GPL a pps since the GPL confl icts w ith A ppl e's App
S tor e  te rms. (btw , th is problem  ev enexist s w i th LG PL)~~ ~
f e rmien rico I like


~~~
hak8or
Not always._I believe_a common understanding is_if it__statically__links with
GPL_code,_then it spreads_to your code._If it dynamically links_then your
program is_not_hit with GPL, as the user is able to change the dynamic library
with their_own._If what_you_dewxribed_were the case, then the_Tivoization
lawsuit would have went differently_instead of_GPLv3 coming out.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I believe a common understanding_is_if it statically_links with GPL code,
> then it spreads to your_code. If it dynamically links then_your program is
>_not_hit_with GPL

The FSF disagrees:_[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.en.html#GPLStaticVsDyna...](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.en.html#GPLStaticVsDynamic)

> If what you dewxribed were_the case, then the Tivoization lawsuit_would have
> went differently instead of GPLv3_coming out.

The anti-Tivoization clause of GPLv3_doesn't deal with a linking_issue, it
deals_with the fact that even_if the device_maker releases_code for
modifications under_GPLv2, that doesn't let the user_modify and replace_the
code on the device if the_device_is locked down_so_as_not to_accept modified
code, and_the_user hasn't_been_provided with the appropriate incantations to
unlock_it.

------
rhodysurf
This_is pretty much all I want except_for it being GPL

~~~
YetAnotherNick
Is_there_any reason why you_don't want to publish your_changes to the library?

~~~
jnbiche
It's GPL, not_LGPL, so__your_ code_will also have to be licensed GPL.

Which means that:

1\. you can't_build proprietary apps with this framework,_and;

2\. it's almost certain_to be_rejected_by the Apple_App_Store, since_they
typically reject GPL-licensed apps. A few might_sneak through,_but as a matter
of policy, Apple_rejects GPL apps since_the_GPL conflicts with Apple's App
Store terms._(btw, this problem even exists with_LGPL)

~~~
fermienrico
I like