conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review

[Lawrence Rosen]

> The FSF argument is that Totem is a derivative of gstreamer. The LGPL
> would then require Totem to be under restrictions that are not present
> in the GPL. This presents a conflict, so instead gstreamer is treated as
> if it's GPLed. I don't think anyone would claim that the library is a
> derivative work of the application that uses it.

Isn't this allowed because the LGPL expressly permits recipients to
distribute the library under the GPL? See LGPL § 4. It has nothing to do
with any derivative work argument.

/Larry


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Garrett [mailto:mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org]
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 11:27 AM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review
> 
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 08:20:47PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> 
> > Since GStreamer apparently can't remain (under LGPL) it must be a
> > derivative of Totem, right?
> 
> The FSF argument is that Totem is a derivative of gstreamer. The LGPL
> would then require Totem to be under restrictions that are not present
> in the GPL. This presents a conflict, so instead gstreamer is treated as
> if it's GPLed. I don't think anyone would claim that the library is a
> derivative work of the application that uses it.
> 
> --
> Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org