John Summerfied wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
they wish...I guess I missed Les' point.
Well, you need to read the GPL and LGPL more closely.
In order to produce a runnable program (or a driver)
one needs to link with libraries. These libraries
are either GPL or LGPL, makes not much difference.
You too need to reread those licences; there's an enormous different.
I've read both ad nauseum. Would you care to tutor me in what
way the wording actually makes a difference?
Both GPL and LGPL have virus-like properties of infecting
LGPL dies not apply to code linked with it, just to modifications and
direct (ie not linked) derivitives.
You need to re-read sections 5 and 6 of the LGPL.
[QUOTE MODE ON]
5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library,
but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked
with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in
isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls
outside the scope of this License.
However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates
an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains
portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the library".
The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states
terms for distribution of such executables.
[QUOTE MODE OFF]
So, if you actually link an executable with the library, then section
6 kicks in.
[QUOTE MODE ON]
6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a
"work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work
containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms
of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work
for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such
modifications.
[QUOTE MODE OFF]
Aha, you have to allow people to modify and reverse engineer
your code which contains trade secrets about your hardware
interface.
Believe me, I spent many hours sitting in rooms talking with
lawyers about the LGPL, and while IANAL, all the lawyers agreed
that the waters were much too murky to use anything with LGPL
in any of our proprietary programs. Some of them were of the
opinion that the LGPL, as written, was unenforceable, but that
it would have to go to a court, and that getting a jury to
understand the LGPL was a very iffy thing. Others were less sure
whether it was enforceable, but were also certain that we didn't
want to test it.
If glibc were GPL, then your application would become GPL if you linked
with it (there are borderline cases, this is a ferinstance ok?).
Certainly.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
