LGPL question

[Arandir]

On Fri, 12 Nov 1999, Rob Stubbs wrote:
> I am contemplating developing a library under an open source license and am
> studying the various licenses to see if any satifies my needs.  The LGPL
> license seems to be closest to my satisfaction but I have one major problem
> with it (if I understand it correctly).
>
> ... snip ...
>
> This seems to violate the intent of the license, but I cannot see that it
> actually violates the license itself.  Or would this be considered a
> derivative work?  Regarding section #5, is it true that an executable that
> is compiled or statically with the library be covered by the LGPL, but that
> an executable they is dynamically linked to the LGPL would not be?

IANAL, and IMHO, this can be legally done. The code that uses the libraries
makes the choice of whether it calls the LGPL function or the proprietary one.
It is not derived from your work since no code of yours was used, only the API,
and only a very tiny part of it at that. Take these hypothetical example: a
program that can use either motif or lesstif. Or a program that can use either
harmony or qt. Or a program that can use a floating point library or the built
in proprietary routines of the CPU.

You have two problems with what you want to do, again IMHO :-) First
of all, you are trying to demand what someone else does with their own code.
Second, and more important, if you agree that they can duplicate your entire
set of algorithms independently, what's wrong with only duplicating one part of
it?

-- 
Arandir...
_______________________________
<http://www.meer.net/~arandir/>