On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:15:44AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > More clearly (according to my understanding), the resulting binary > > is--it pulls in pieces of readline--but the source is not. (I'm not sure > > if this impacts your point, but it's an important distinction.) > > That's debatable. If your program is written against a library, and > there is only one implementation of that library, I would argue that the > source is a derivative of the library as well. Things get more complex > if there are multiple implementations, of course.
LGPL clause 5 seems to express the FSF's view on this, which seems correct and reasonable to me: " 5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License. However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the library". The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables." -- Glenn Maynard
