[ILUG] GPL clarification.

[Paul Jakma]

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Liam Bedford wrote:

> AIUI, if you link to GPL code, your binary is going to be GPL, and thus the 
> source will be to.
>
> There's a reason the LGPL exists. glibc is LGPL I think.

Note that the major difference between the two is that LGPL tries to 
be more specific about constraining its effects on the work 
comprising the library itself (see section 5 of the LGPL).

However, neither the GPL nor the LGPL either allow or disallow 
binary-only works to link to them. Both are framed in terms of 
requiring "derived works" to have source made available.

One easily show, with conjectural examples, that GPL need not always 
apply to binary works which link to a GPL work and that LGPL /could/ 
apply to binary works which link to an LGPL work.

The test is *always* "derived work", not whether some work does or 
does not link to a GPL or LGPL work (except so far as the LGPL has 
language to try define the boundary in terms of linking).

The LGPL is rather more verbose and hard to understand for that extra 
language too.

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	paul at clubi.ie	paul at jakma.org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune: