On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 07:48 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > 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. As the author of the (L)GPL, his interpretation will carry great weight in a court case. Remember, the Clib with GCC at its initial release was GPL'd. > > > 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. Unless the manufacturer of RealPlayer has a signed written statement from the FSF they are hoping they will not be sued by the FSF. -- brtaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
