What is the best copy-left license for a library if you want to allow linking?

[Wilson, Andrew]

Brant Sears scripsit:

> Hi. I have a library I've been working on for a while in my spare time
> that I want to distribute as open source.
> 
> I want people to be able to freely use my library in commercial
> products without having to open source the product itself or provide
> object files to relink to my library (which the LGPL requires). Other
> than that issue, I like the GPL.

Since you like GPL, you could use it with the "runtime exception," as
FSF now
seems to do for its libraries rather than use LGPL.  The FSF verbiage
for the "runtime exception" to allow linking of proprietary code to a
GPL library is:

   "As a special exception, you may use this file as part of a free
software
   library without restriction.  Specifically, if other files
instantiate
   templates or use macros or inline functions from this file, or you
compile
   this file and link it with other files to produce an executable, this
   file does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be covered
by
   the GNU General Public License.  This exception does not however
   invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be covered
by
   the GNU General Public License."

See http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/17_intro/license.html


cheers

Andy Wilson
Intel Open Source Technology