This never really clicked since I’ve been testing regularly (or trying to at least), but I just noticed that the native debugger used is GNU’s GDB, which–and correct me if I’m wrong–is licensed under the terms of the GPL.
Am I missing something here? :?:
This never really clicked since I've been testing regularly (or trying to at least), but I just noticed that the native debugger used is GNU's GDB, which--and correct me if I'm wrong--is licensed under the terms of the GPL.Am I missing something here? :?:
Haiku is also using GNU coreutils, etc, which are also under the GPL. Entirely legally, R5 also used them.
Ah… well, if Be used them, I have no doubt it’s gotta be legal. But can someone explain to me why this is so? (I thought the “viral” nature of the GPL prevents this sort of thing, but I’m not familiar with any details of the license.)
This never really clicked since I've been testing regularly (or trying to at least), but I just noticed that the native debugger used is GNU's GDB, which--and correct me if I'm wrong--is licensed under the terms of the GPL.Am I missing something here? :?:
Using GPL software in a non-GPL OS doesn’t make the OS GPL… this seems to be a common misconception.
Now, the definition of "using" is usually the catch - I have no clue how the GDB is launched from the OS, but I assume it’s "separated" enough that it’s not considered a "linked library" per-se.
I thought the "viral" nature of the GPL prevents this sort of thing, but I'm not familiar with any details of the license.
The usual FUD.
Also, it’s not as viral as some people may think.
If you write software that USES GPL code, and are found to be in violation - you can still remove/replace the GPL code in order to be legal again.
You can think of the GDB kind of like another application - you can build and launch GPL applications on ANY OS - but any code that re-uses those GPL libraries/code needs to be licensed under GPL as well.
Furthermore, if someone DOES want to make a GPL version of Haiku - they can. The BSD license can be converted to GPL due to it’s compatibility. At that point, that "branch" of Haiku would be licensed under GPL.
you can build and launch GPL applications on ANY OS - but any code that re-uses those GPL libraries/code needs to be licensed under GPL as well.
They libraries might not stand up in court in some countries, as it wouldn’t be a "derived work", but thats for lawyers and specific countries to deal with.
OS X includes GPL’ed binaries for which the code is provided, so legal. R5 did too, and code was provided, so legal. And so on.
You can think of the GDB kind of like another application - you can build and launch GPL applications on ANY OS - but any code that re-uses those GPL libraries/code needs to be licensed under GPL as well.
Right, but I’m talking about "distribution" here. I understand the GPL allows one to distribute GPL programs with non-GPL programs; I’m assuming this is what keeps us legal…
umccullough wrote:You can think of the GDB kind of like another application - you can build and launch GPL applications on ANY OS - but any code that re-uses those GPL libraries/code needs to be licensed under GPL as well.Right, but I’m talking about "distribution" here. I understand the GPL allows one to distribute GPL programs with non-GPL programs; I’m assuming this is what keeps us legal…
If you distribute binaries that are derived from GPL licensed code - you only have to provide/distribute the source and any modifications you made to it as well.