On 2 Jun 1997, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Gunthorpe) wrote on 01.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On 1 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote: > > > > > > I believe libc5.so is LGPL... > > > > > > I don't. /usr/doc/libc5//copyright doesn't *mention* the LGPL *at > > > all*, though the libc6 one mentions both. > > > > Yep, the copyright file does not mention the LGPL at all. This seems to me > > to be very limiting of commercial software running on linux. > > Yes, very limiting. The code actually cannot be linked statically! What a > tragedy ... NOT. There seems to be some confusion here. The GPL states that when GPL code is aggregated with non GPL code the new code is covered by the GPL when they are combined (what this means I am still unsure), ie: --- These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based ^^^ This bit on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. --- Now, when you link -- statically or dynamically -- you are including portions of libc5 in your binary. This results in your binary being covered under the GPL. I am not sure how that will effect the source code. The common belief is that it forces the source code to be included (though likely not GPL'd) with the binary. If you use a LGPL'd library then statically linking requires that you destribute relinkable object form versions of your binary so the user can upgrade the statically linked lib. Jason -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
