Bob Taylor wrote:
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.
Depends on what you mean by "carry great weight". It will
certainly guide the court in ascertaining what the intended
meaning is, but it will not guide the court in determining
whether that intended meaning is enforceable. (Note:
"ascertain" and "determine" mean different things.)
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.
Well, there's not enough information yet to make that determination.
But if they aren't providing enough information to the customer,
so that the customer can modify the program for his own use and
"debug", then they are in violation of the intended meaning
of the LGPL.
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!
