On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Liam Bedford wrote:
> AIUI, if you link to GPL code, your binary is going to be GPL, and thus the
> source will be to.
>> There's a reason the LGPL exists. glibc is LGPL I think.
Note that the major difference between the two is that LGPL tries to
be more specific about constraining its effects on the work
comprising the library itself (see section 5 of the LGPL).
However, neither the GPL nor the LGPL either allow or disallow
binary-only works to link to them. Both are framed in terms of
requiring "derived works" to have source made available.
One easily show, with conjectural examples, that GPL need not always
apply to binary works which link to a GPL work and that LGPL /could/
apply to binary works which link to an LGPL work.
The test is *always* "derived work", not whether some work does or
does not link to a GPL or LGPL work (except so far as the LGPL has
language to try define the boundary in terms of linking).
The LGPL is rather more verbose and hard to understand for that extra
language too.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma paul at clubi.iepaul at jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
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!
