Re: That one is laid out pretty clearly

Post #40,592 by Arkadiy 5/30/02 4:16:42 PM Reply	Re: That one is laid out pretty clearly So, would it be enough to provide .o files instead of source? That would allow the user to re-link the app with another version of LGPL'd library.
Post #40,608 by ben_tilly 5/30/02 6:30:07 PM Reply	Exactly Or, more to the point, the user could look at the LGPL library, then write another library that meets the API and link to that. The way that the LGPL is looser than the GPL is pretty much that the LGPL allows the creation of proprietary derivative works. It doesn't allow the distribution of them in a still proprietary form, but you can create them. Linking does, of course, create the proprietary derived works that I mentioned. Cheers, Ben "... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything." --Richard Feynman
Post #40,624 by Arkadiy 5/30/02 8:00:28 PM Reply	I think you got it a bit wrong Both GPL and LGPL allow creation of derived works. Both disallow distribution of such works unless the code is available. The difference is in the definition of derivative work. For GPL, linking to code (statically or dynamically) is considered derivative work. For LGPL, dynamic linking is not considered a derivation. When static linking is used, LGPL is a unclear to me. Apparently, you must provide the code that links to the library in such a form that allows re-linking to different version of the library (object files?). It may be that in the case you modified the library, you must provide the applicatiuon that links to it in a form that makes debugging of library possible (source code?). Like I said, I am a bit unclear there.
Post #40,734 by Brandioch 5/31/02 1:53:35 PM Reply	That was my understanding. For LGPL, dynamic linking is not considered a derivation. And, therefore, you do not have to release any source code. At least, that was the way I understood it. The LGPL was created to allow proprietary apps to link to libraries and such in such a manner that would NOT necessitate the release of the proprietary code. Ben, if this is incorrect, could you/would you explain under what circumstances a proprietary app could run on a GPL/LGPL'd OS/library? Aside from the bit about having everything built into the app in the first place. I'm confused on this, now.
Post #40,879 by ben_tilly 6/1/02 8:53:51 PM Reply	I believe you are right.... And you just demonstrated why I got 2 wrong. :-) Cheers, Ben "... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything." --Richard Feynman

Welcome to IWETHEY!