Hacker News Reader

> Dynamic linking to a GPL software does not require the developer releasing their code.

That's not true, you do have to release the code. There is no difference between statically or dynamically linking to a GPL library. Source: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLStaticVsDynamic

You may be thinking of the LGPL.

View on HN

Not everyone agrees on this point [1]. One relevant quote: "This is ultimately a question not of the GPL per se, but of how copyright law defines derivative works."

Whether or not dynamic linking constitutes a "derived" work is still an open question, legally speaking. Obviously the FSF has their own thoughts on this, but it's unclear how an actual court would rule.

(IANAL, this is not legal advice, etc. etc.)

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Lin...

That may be true, but a state of ambiguity is as good as saying its covered by GPL ... no organisation is going to look at that and say "that's fine, let's use it".

In fact, state of ambiguity is the worst for everyone because neither will users be able assume they can exercise their free software rights. So everyone loses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com