On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Alan Cox wrote: > > If I use libc, I don't think I am creating a libc. Unless I > > am, I'm not deriving, I think. If I use libc, I simply use the > > services. Hence, libc is "a section of" the thing I am making, and > > does not derive from it. > > Your program derives from libc by being linked with it. This is > precisely why an LGPL has to exist.
true. more precisely: when you compile your program, the binary is a combined work which is derived from both your source code and libc. that derived work may only be distributed if ALL of it's parts (i.e. your source AND the libc) may be distributed under the terms of the GPL. note that there is also an exemption for libraries which normally come with the operating system - and libc definitely qualifies there...but that is a specific exemption which doesn't affect the general rule above. libc is a potentially confusing example, so s/libc/libFOO/ in my first paragraph above. craig -- craig sanders
