Physical file organisation of any bearing to LGPL?

Mark Wielaard mark at
Fri Aug 6 08:16:27 UTC 2010

On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 18:33 -0700, Wilson, Andrew wrote:
> Not trying to encourage people to cut corners; actually, the opposite, I'm
> trying to encourage people to follow what these licenses actually say.
> To pick one example, GPL + runtime exception is not functionally identical to
> LGPL wrt source code fulfillment.  LGPLvX says it's OK to redistribute
> LGPL libraries as binaries without the corresponding source as long as (a)
> the libraries are unmodified, and (b) you provide a link to the place
> from whence you obtained the libraries.  Not so for GPL + runtime exception; if you
> pass through the libraries in binary, modified or unmodified, you are on the hook
> to provide the sources as well.  Etc., etc., these differences can
> sometimes make compliance a little tricky and you need good advice.

Actually that was kind of my point. The principle is clearly that users
should receive the source code of the code you borrowed from the
original authors in your program. Then why would you go to extreme
analysis of when one exception says there is some corner case where you
aren't obliged to versus some other corner case somewhere else. The
principle is clear. The user should receive the source code, so just
provide it to them and don't go trying to find some corner case where
you can cut a corner and don't provide it. IMHO.



More information about the License-discuss mailing list