John Cowan jcowan at
Tue Nov 6 18:56:02 UTC 2001

email at wrote:

> The LGPL gives away this right. You can take non-LGPL code, compile
> and link it with LGPL code, and distribute the whole thing
> as an executable. (you still have to include all the original
> LGPL source code, etc) But you make it easier for the user ot 
> actually use your code.

Actually, the LGPL also requires that the end user be able to
relink a new version of the LGPLed library with your code,
so you must distribute your code in object (linkable) form.
What you are describing is "GPL + library exception".

> but, for the life of me, I see no threat in allowing people
> to distribute your code as a compiled executable, as long as
> they have to include your original source code.

By distributing library code under the GPL, you privilege
open-source developers over proprietary developers.  If you
want Open Source to become a pervasive practice, this is
one way to encourage that.  For example, only GPLed programs
can use the Readline library, which provides a very friendly
CLI interface (as CLI interfaces go).

Not to perambulate             || John Cowan <jcowan at>
    the corridors               ||
during the hours of repose     ||
    in the boots of ascension.  \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel

license-discuss archive is at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list