[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...

> 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.

[gmueckl]

You are confusing the terms.of the GPL and LGPL. The GPL does require a program linked to a GPL library to be distributed under the GPL as well. This requirement is not in the LGPL. There, you only have to provide the user with the means to exchange the LGPL library with a different, possibly modified one.