LGPL vs. GPL + Classpath Exception

[John Cowan]

Roger Fujii scripsit:

> I think they chose it because it is simpler to understand.  However,
> having said that, there are conceptual differences pending on how one
> defines "derived".   Under the normal understanding of an lgpl library,
> mere use does not trigger anything.  So, if A is your program and B
> is an LGPLed module, distributing A or (A + B) is ok (so long as you
> honor LGPL for B).

Provided that if you distribute A+B, people can relink with a new
compatible copy of B.  In Java, this isn't a problem.

> If A calls B, it's hard to say that A is independent of B.

Not at all, unless there is no substitute for B available.

> I think the only use of the exception clause is if you are a JVM
> distributor.   Anyone else who uses it should just treat it like
> the GPL.

Not at all!  The whole point of the exception is to ensure that you can
deliver arbitrarily-licensed Java code and run it on a Classpath-based
JVM, either delivered with your code or already in the end user's hands.

-- 
MEET US AT POINT ORANGE AT MIDNIGHT BRING YOUR DUCK OR PREPARE TO FACE WUGGUMS
John Cowan      cowan at ccil.org      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan