Miklos Vajna [off-list ref] writes:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 03:46:58PM -0800, "Shawn O. Pearce" [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as this project
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
In addition to the permissions in the GNU General Public License,
the authors give you unlimited permission to link the compiled
version of this file into combinations with other programs,
and to distribute those combinations without any restriction
coming from the use of this file. (The General Public License
restrictions do apply in other respects; for example, they cover
modification of the file, and distribution when not linked into
a combined executable.)
IANAL - what is the difference between this and the LGPL?
Under LGPL, you must provide linkable object files to your (possibly
closed source) program, so that people who made changes to (or obtained an
updated version of) a LGPL'ed library can re-link your program and use the
updated library. The above does not ask you to do so.
The way I read LGPL is that "We deeply care about our LGPL library and any
improvements to it. Although we do not care at all about how your crappy
closed source program is written, we want to make sure that the users can
keep using your program after improvements are made to our library.". I
do not think it makes a practical difference when your program uses the
LGPL library as a shard library from that point of view.
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 05:00:52AM -0800, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Under LGPL, you must provide linkable object files to your (possibly
closed source) program, so that people who made changes to (or obtained an
updated version of) a LGPL'ed library can re-link your program and use the
updated library. The above does not ask you to do so.
The way I read LGPL is that "We deeply care about our LGPL library and any
improvements to it. Although we do not care at all about how your crappy
closed source program is written, we want to make sure that the users can
keep using your program after improvements are made to our library.". I
do not think it makes a practical difference when your program uses the
LGPL library as a shard library from that point of view.
Ah, I see - so this is a "Lesser LGPL". :)
Thank you both Junio and David.
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 07:33:27PM +0000, Miklos Vajna wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 05:00:52AM -0800, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Under LGPL, you must provide linkable object files to your (possibly
closed source) program, so that people who made changes to (or obtained an
updated version of) a LGPL'ed library can re-link your program and use the
updated library. The above does not ask you to do so.
The way I read LGPL is that "We deeply care about our LGPL library and any
improvements to it. Although we do not care at all about how your crappy
closed source program is written, we want to make sure that the users can
keep using your program after improvements are made to our library.". I
do not think it makes a practical difference when your program uses the
LGPL library as a shard library from that point of view.
Ah, I see - so this is a "Lesser LGPL". :)
LGPL also has a clause that allow the user to make it become GPLv2 or
later, even if you chose LGPL v2.1 *only* (as in not LGPL v2.1 or later).
Seeing how the FSF has just decided to use those upgrade clauses with
the GFDL, I'm not really likely to fancy the use of any license that
forces me to accept an "or later" clause. I would be _really_ against
the LGPL FWIW.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org