LGPL question

Rob Stubbs rob_stubbs at email.com
Sat Nov 13 04:35:09 UTC 1999


I am contemplating developing a library under an open source license and am
studying the various licenses to see if any satifies my needs.  The LGPL
license seems to be closest to my satisfaction but I have one major problem
with it (if I understand it correctly).

Suppose that a library is released under the LGPL and someone (or some
company) discovers that it can improve the performance (which is very
important) of this library by rewriting one or more of the routines.  The
company knows that it could make a lot of money by selling this new library
if they rewrote it in its entirety and included their newly discovered
proprietary algorithm.  However, someone in the company realizes that they
do not have to rewrite it.  Instead, they modify the library by adding the
ability to set a callback function that if set would call this function
instead of the one included in the original library.  The modified library
is then released under the LGPL and a new proprietary library that is a
"work that uses the (original) library" is sold by the company and kept
closed and secret.

It seems to me (and I know absolutely nothing about contracts or law in
general) that the section of the LGPL that applies is #2(d) which only
states that if the library uses a function or data in the calling program
that the library also be functional without this function or data.  Since
the company modified the library to use the function in the original library
by default, this criterion would be satisfied.

This seems to violate the intent of the license, but I cannot see that it
actually violates the license itself.  Or would this be considered a
derivative work?  Regarding section #5, is it true that an executable that
is compiled or statically with the library be covered by the LGPL, but that
an executable they is dynamically linked to the LGPL would not be?

Anyway, does this scenario violate the license?  If so, why?  And if not,
what type of clause could be added to prevent such a situation?


Thanks for your help.

Rob Stubbs

-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com





More information about the License-discuss mailing list