On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 13:13 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: > 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: > > Exactly, because it's GPL'ed. LGPL and GPL are different things. > > Though they are similar, they are substantially different. > > Yes, and in two ways. First, they affect the library itself > differently, and second, they affect the code linked with it > differently. GPL completely infects all code it touches. > LGPL doesn't, but one must still, in effect, provide source > to the customer. .. if you implement a derivative works of LGPL'ed work. That's not the case if you dynamically link against a LGPL'ed work. To bring an example: If you port glibc to a new platform or implement a new feature into glibc you will have to open your sources according to the LGPL, because you implement a derivative work, having been derived from LGPL'ed code. If you write an application that uses glibc (effectively everything under linux) you don't have to, because your work "uses glibc" and isn't a derivative of glibc's sources or binaries. If you statically link your work, your work and the libraries it uses become integral part of your application binary, i.e. your "product" (the binary) is directly coupled to the libraries's binaries, i.e. a derivative work of the library's binaries. That's exactly what the realplayer folks do: Their realplayer binary uses glibc, gtk etc. Ralf
