License Committee Report for July 2007

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 8/1/07, Brian Behlendorf <brian at hyperreal.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Yet you believe the claim in
> > http://www.linuxrising.org/files/licensingfaq.html that:
> >
> >       In order to link GStreamer [an LGPLv2 library] to Totem [a GPL
> >       application], you need to use section 3 of the LGPL to convert
> >       GStreamer to GPL.
> >
> > is simply wrong?
> >
> > I can't follow your reasoning.
>
> I can.  It's wrong, because you can link an LGPLv2 library against other
> code licensed under any other license, so long as some specific conditions
> are met (the LGPL library can be replaced with an updated version, etc).
> The LGPL code did not need to be "converted", because the GPL effects
> those LGPL conditions.

As far as I'm concerned, the LGPLv2 could have conditioned its
"additional permissions" on renaming One Microsoft Way into One FSF
Way. The proposition preceding my "yet" that you snipped was that
(quoting John Cowan)

<quote>

Software that your program links to does not count as "other software".

</quote>

regarding the GPL and OSD#9.

> The GPL may cover the work as a whole, but the LGPLv2 still covers the library.

Sorry, but what exactly is "work as a whole", and "the LGPLv2 still
covers the library" in this context?

Feel free to correct me:

"work as a whole" <- all works ("sections") of "combined work" forming
an aggregate of GPL and LGPL works;

"the LGPLv2 still covers the library" <- the library is also available
under LGPL separatedly from GPL work in "work as a whole" (see above).

?

TIA.

regards,
alexander.