[OT] QPL-ed library linking with a GPL-ed library.

Carlo Wood carlo at alinoe.com
Thu Jul 5 01:19:06 UTC 2001

On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 07:03:41PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> FYI the demangler is LGPL, not GPL.

In that case I suppose it would have been better if I had fixed
libiberty and just linked my lib with it.

> Carlo> I'll have a look at libiberties testsuite and see if I can come
> Carlo> up with a test case.
> I can't imagine how anyone could claim that using or reading the
> libiberty demangler test suite would cause your program to violate the
> GPL.

Sure, but looking at the source code of the demangler would, perhaps.
I now looked at the testsuite and I don't understand why you want a
patch from me; adding a test case seems trivial - except that there is
yet no test for the new ABI what-so-ever.  I gave the problematic
mangled name in my previous post.

Another issue is libbfd :/.  This seems to be GPL (not LGPL).  While
my understanding of the GLP is that I could USE the library without
getting "a work based on the Work" and thus without being forced to
use the GPL for anything that links with libbfd, others seem to think
so -- and the existance of LGPL seems to indicate that too.

Hence, I am having a HUGE problem: I can't use libbfd.
The only solution seems to be to either release libbfd under LGPL or
to write my own program counter --> source file / line number
conversion routines.  This all doesn't give me the feeling that
libbfd is "free" (to use)...  Common sense tells me that when I write
source code that is NOT based on any source code written by others,
but merely uses the interface provided by the library of some free
software package - then I should be allowed to use whatever license
I wish for my source code.  This seems to be the intend of the GPL
as well, as it says:

"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
 and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
 themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
 sections when you distribute them as separate works."

as well as

"Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
 your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
 exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
 collective works based on the Program."

As we are clearly speaking here about work written entirely by me, and
without that I am putting ANY restrictions on source code that was
part of, or is derived from libbfd -- I'd say that at least the intend
of the GPL is to NOT contest my rights to work written entirely by me

Can someone tell me where I can get advise about this problem?
When replying you might want to remove gcc at gcc.gnu.org from the CC line.

Carlo Wood <carlo at alinoe.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 350 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20010705/9993c20b/attachment.sig>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list