License Committee Report for July 2007

[Brendan Scott]

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)
> 
> <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?

I think the issue is drawing a distinction between the library in the abstract and the particular copy of the library which is linked. 

Brendan