How can GPL not let me link to it?

I don't understand how GPL and LGPL is different. How can GPL legally disallow me to link to a library without releasing my source code under GPL? The Linux kernel is GPLv2 and all proprietary programs that runs on Linux links to it. Would it be possible to enforce the no linking rule to any proprietary program that links to a GPL library? Distribution is another matter, but if the library is already on the system how can it be illegal to dlopen("") ?

Ask the FSF. Sage.

This is incorrect.
Maybe you are thinking of libc which is under lgpl

So no code can run on Linux without libc, that's new. You define linking in a very narrow sense. How are interrupt handlers any different than dynamically linking to a library? Same concept. You also implicitly say that any GPL license can be circumvented by writing a thin LGPL wrapper?

Why would I ask FSF about the rule of law? Well, why would I ask Holla Forums, but that's what I did. Did not expect much, so that's why I'm not disappointed.


I don't think you understand enough about software to ask the question you're asking.

Your reading comprehension is not good enough that you should be on the internet. Go fetch an adult to help you read the thread.

Aww.. I can't help it. I'll help you out. Assuming you can read body language, then look at this gif and then read the post again specifically ", that's new".

So please use your brain next time, instead of spraying your own stupidity all over the internet, that's just embarrasing.

I never said that.
Let's say there is a GPL library for reading png files.
Now let's say you wrote a program which uses that library and then swaps the red and green channels.
Your program is a png reader with extra functionality.
Now let's say you replace that png reader library with one that has a cuck license.
The definition of your program is the same. It's an image reader with extra functionality.
If it were the case that Linux were to make your code GPL your program would need to be defined as a kernel that also has support for reading pngs and swapping the red and green color channels.
It makes more sense that your program is not a kernel, hence it is not a derivative work.

If you don't like the contract, tough shit. Don't use the software. Or use it, break the terms of the contract, and get your ass sued off. Your choice. Welcome to the real world, Junior.

You should actually read the kernel license.

Yea, I know you didn't, I exaggerated. My bad.

Let me make my own shitty logic:
- A movie is released
- I write a review and tell viewers that at they should skip to 10:10 in the movie if they want to see nudity. (call 0x3F2 OR syscall)
- So that would make my review a derivative work and all my first born are belong to the maker of the film.

I'm investigating the claim that a lawsuit would actually be valid for linking (not static).. junior.

You should actually read the kernel license, detective. That would help with your investigation.


Instead of pretending to be an 3l33t hax0r lawyer, I'm going to point you in the right direction.

It doesn't "prevent" you from doing anything. That's what a court does if someone with stake in the copyright finds out and then decides to take you to court over a license violation. The license violation only happens if you distribute, and it only happens when you do not provide users a means to get the source code, or allow users to further redistribute the source code or binaries compiled from it.
There is no license violation without redistribution.

Also, there are additional complications with trademarks. Sure, you cannot prevent people from redistrubuting the source code, but you sure as hell can prevent them from using your trademarks.
This tangent is basically the CentOS situation years back with Red Hat Linux. Also, the Firefox/IceCat fork.

You're retarded. is why I said "What".

Thank you! That was very helpful.

This is was and still is uncertain of. If someone created a proprietary program, that would run on fx. Debian and took advantage of the GPL'ed libraries on that system. Would that be illegal? Fx. ffmpeg on Debian is compiled with --enable-gpl, thus everything ffmpeg is GPL. No one is redistributing the GPL binaries, the user download a proprietary program that use the system libraries.

I know of a handful of GPL programs which circumvent distribution licensing the other way around by moving the act of distribution to the end-user. Fx. Wine (winetricks) with Microsoft Fonts and other programs that use freeware data files.

I talk trash. It doesn't mean I hate you or really think that you are stupid. I don't know anything about you user.

Did you know that software can run on Linux without Libc? Libc is not Linux and Linux does not have any libc!

has FSF ever actually sued anyone?

yes, Cisco. It's on the GPL's Wikipedia page

Nice attempt at trolling, this can no longer be attributed to a reading disability.

Prove me wrong. Linux does not have any libc.

Who said it did? You're retarded.


But that's wrong you retard. Most of those programs could just as easily be compiled to be binary compatible with a different kernel without any changes.

Nice trolling, appreciate you keep it alive.

This is awesome. I love the logic!

Because it's licensed specifically to prevent greedy, selfish fucktards from leeching off of better peoples work.

so then why linux allows syscall exception, to allow proprietary software to be allowed to run on linux and be sold?
why doesn't linux outlaw proprietary software on linux? they are leeching off people who made linux. their software runs on linux and makes profit because of that

Because that's what they decided to do. Go shit in your hat.

The cancer is metastasizing.