On Sun, 16 May 2004 09:44:17 +0100 (IST), Paul Jakma <paul at clubi.ie> wrote:
> If you _always_ supply source with the work, 3b need never apply and
> _noone_ has the right to demand source from you. You fully discharge
> your responsibilities if you provide source with the work.
A further question.
The scenario is modification of an LGPL library with one
primary copyright holder. The changes are to accomodate an
extended implementation of an RFC. The extensions are useful
but are not covered by the RFC. The primary copyright holder
does not wish to incorporate the changes back into the main
library codebase, viewing them as undesirable complications.
The modified LGPL library is to be shipped as part of a product.
Under the LGPL, I take it that you are still obliged to reveal
these source code changes and are not allowed to "sit on them".
Further, I am assuming that a way to comply is to provide the
source code of the library before modification, at a certain
known revision, along with a patch for the changes made.
No obligation to keep the patches up-to-date with newer
revisions of the base library?
Is this enough to comply with the LGPL requirements?
Dermot.
--
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!
