License Committee Report for July 2007
lists at opensourcelaw.biz
Wed Aug 1 03:34:20 UTC 2007
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> 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)
> Software that your program links to does not count as "other software".
> 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?
I think the issue is drawing a distinction between the library in the abstract and the particular copy of the library which is linked.
More information about the License-discuss