On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 00:41 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 00:31, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > > In any case, no corporation is going to use anything which is GPL or > > > > LGPL and risk being taken to court. > > > > > > They do use it, they just can't distribute it - not even if they > > > want to give it away. Which means that the rest of us won't > > > ever have it. > > Wrong. You can dynamically link against LGPL'ed libraries and many > > closed source packages, comprising $$$ ones, do. > > Yes, but RMS would prefer that the LGPL did not exist. Yes, this is his opinion. It's a political statement of his, you can agree with or not. > > Tiny, but popular example: RealPlayer (RealPlayer10GOLD.rpm) > > > > ldd usr/local/RealPlayer/realplay.bin > > linux-gate.so.1 => (0x00869000) > > libstdc++.so.5 => /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5 (0x00e97000) > > You'll note there's nothing like, say, libreadline in > there. Exactly, because it's GPL'ed. LGPL and GPL are different things. Though they are similar, they are substantially different. Ralf
