copyrights

[John Cowan]

email at greglondon.com wrote:


> The LGPL gives away this right. You can take non-LGPL code, compile
> and link it with LGPL code, and distribute the whole thing
> as an executable. (you still have to include all the original
> LGPL source code, etc) But you make it easier for the user ot 
> actually use your code.


Actually, the LGPL also requires that the end user be able to
relink a new version of the LGPLed library with your code,
so you must distribute your code in object (linkable) form.
What you are describing is "GPL + library exception".


> but, for the life of me, I see no threat in allowing people
> to distribute your code as a compiled executable, as long as
> they have to include your original source code.


By distributing library code under the GPL, you privilege
open-source developers over proprietary developers.  If you
want Open Source to become a pervasive practice, this is
one way to encourage that.  For example, only GPLed programs
can use the Readline library, which provides a very friendly
CLI interface (as CLI interfaces go).

-- 
Not to perambulate             || John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
    the corridors               || http://www.reutershealth.com
during the hours of repose     || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
    in the boots of ascension.  \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3