On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 23:08 -0800, Bob Taylor wrote: > On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 18:41 -0800, Donald Arseneau wrote: > > Mike McCarty <mike.mccarty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > 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". > > > > This "linking" is what we'd normally refer to as "static linking", > > where the library code is included in the executable. Dynamic > > linking to a shared object library does not cause portions of the > > library to be included in the executable. > > Please show us *where* in the GPL/LGPL are the words "static linking" > and "Dynamic linking" used? Nowhere, but it's how the FSF interprets the LGPL/GPL and how courts have interpreted it, when sentencing SW vendors trying to use GPL'ed SW in closed source projects. > I have to agree with many others here. > Linux/GNU, as currently licensed is dead in the water for any commercial > development use. You are plain wrong. Linking commercial/closed source works against LGPL'ed libraries doesn't violate the LGPL, linking them against GPL'ed binaries does. Ralf
