Is this better for tomsrtbt?
M.Runesson at computer.org
Sun Apr 22 09:56:44 UTC 2001
> My bootdisk currently includes a libc5.so.5.4.13 that I have down to only
> 416,361 bytes. More than 2 years ago, back in October of 1998, I had it
> only down to 432,684 bytes. I havn't distributed that binary libc.so for
> about 2 years. Now, guess what libc5.so.5.4.13 file is currently in use
> on the MuLinux distribution? Yep, the 432,684 byte one I created about
> 2 years ago. Now, the author of MuLinux does *not* mention that he used
This is the foundation of LGPL which libc uses. They have the right to do
this and you can not stop them from doing that as long as you are using
(L)GPL:ed software and make modifications to them.
Of course, good practice is that they in some way notify that you have
been involved and contributes you. Unfourunately, for you, they do not
have to this.
> So, in the case above, am I required not to add the 'give credit and
> mention where you got it' clause to the binary object, even if I make the
> source code available without any such restriction?
> The GPL doesn't really clarify this, it is, after all, aiming at the
> source code, and there is probably no consideration that anyone would
> *care* about a particular binary compile output.
If you require this on a (L)GPL:ed software you will violate (L)GPL.
I now understand where you want to come, but you cannot reach tis as long
as (L)GPL is involved. What you can do is to pt in a request that you
appreciate if your credits ar mentioned when the the sw is redristributed,
but you can not demand it.
Magnus Runesson E-mail: M.Runesson at computer.org
SE-582 12 LINKÖPING Phone: +46-(0)13-273778 (home)
SWEDEN +46-(0)70-745 20 64 (mobile)
More information about the License-discuss