What is Copyleft?
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
rod at cyberspaces.org
Fri Feb 23 20:47:50 UTC 2001
I don't understand your last sentence, and it sounds as if you might be
making an important distinction. I am confused by your reference to linked
to static version and "unlinked objects." How could both be occurring with
the same library?
> Dave J Woolley <david.woolley at bts.co.uk> writes:
> > I had a look over the LGPL and it seems to have some interesting
> > restrictions on derivative works that are almost certainly
> > violated more often than obeyed, at least for the glibc.
> > It seems to require that limited licesnses be given to modify
> > the code and to reverse engineer it to aid in modifying it. There
> > are also requirements with regard to notifying the library copyright.
> > As I read it, if you want to completely avoid restrictions, you
> > must distribute the proprietory code as unlinked object files
> > and let the end user create the final executable. (This only
> > works for the LGPL as it contains exemptions for common uses of
> > header files.)
> The LGPL, unlike the GPL, was intended to permit linking against
> dynamic libraries covered by the LGPL without thereby bringing the
> program which is linking against the dynamic library under the [L]GPL.
> That is, in the case of an LGPL dynamic library, you can provide the
> unlinked object files in the form of an executable which is linked to
> the dynamic library by the dynamic linker (i.e., by the end user).
> So, since glibc is available as a dynamic library, most uses of glibc
> do not conflict with the LGPL. The only way to conflict would be link
> against the static version of glibc and distribute the resulting
> binary without distributing the unlinked objects.
More information about the License-discuss