Scripsit Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:28:30PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The specific wording of the GPL grants an exception for linking binaries > > against GPL-incompatible libraries that are part of the OS, *as long as* > > your GPL binary is not shipped together with your libraries. > Hmmm, I see the wording: > "unless that component [of the OS] itself accompanies the executable" > Surely if your interpretation of this is correct, the *BSD projects > could not redistribute GPL code linked against their C libraries, Arent the xBSD X libraries under the two-clause BSD licence these days? That licence is GPL-compatible. > > Also, if the only barrier to relicensing is the presence of third-party > > LGPL code, this is not a barrier at all, since the LGPL permits linking > > this code against any other object files you choose. > Can you explain why? The LGPL seems to have exactly the same restriction > as the GPL about linking against components of the operating system. The point is that the LGPL's *general* rule about derived works is more lax than that of the GPL: The LGPL does not require the entire derived work to be licenced under GPL, just that the user can plug in new versions of the LGPL-covered part. Thus the "OS-component" exception is typically not invoked at all in these cases. -- Henning Makholm "*Tak* for de ord. *Nu* vinker nobelprisen forude."
