LGPL clarification

[Bryan George]

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> 
>    Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 13:19:57 -0500
>    From: Bryan George <bgeorge at mitre.org>
> 
>    At any rate, I think this particular discussion thread is largely
>    academic.  In the .com world, you have to make a strong case to convince
>    management that it's worth employing a library that places ANY
>    restrictions on ANY proprietary program that uses it under ANY
>    circumstances.  Especially in large companies where existing
>    infrastructure works just fine, thank you, that's more trouble and
>    career risk than the average engineer is willing to accept.
> 
> Note that the C library on GNU/Linux is under the LGPL.  People who
> believe as you describe should avoid GNU/Linux.

Hey, it's not me - I'll use my Linux box, as they say, till they pry my
cold, dead hands off it - I'm just playing the Devil's advocate.  But
you raise a good point - if I statically compile program P using gcc,
and apply a harsh interpretation of LGPL, then I'd have to provide
object files so users could relink against a modified glibc, allow
reverse engineering of my app, etc..

That certainly can't be what LGPL was designed to do.  Indeed, if RMS
were to assert that it was, I think you _would_ see a mass exodus away
from GNU software - it's one thing to act like you own the world, it's
quite another to _say_ you own the world... :)

> Ian

Bryan