On Sun, 16 May 2004, Dermot McGahon wrote:
> 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 changes having been written by someone other than the copyright
holder of the work?
> 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".
Only if you distribute the changes.
> 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.
Source code + patches is probably ok. Only the patches is not.
> No obligation to keep the patches up-to-date with newer
> revisions of the base library?
No, why there should be?
> Is this enough to comply with the LGPL requirements?
If the only difference between GPL and LGPL is of linking to a work
under such licences, then yes.
Paul Jakma paul at clubi.iepaul at jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
warning: do not ever send email to spam at dishone.st
There is an exception to all laws.
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!