🚀 go-pugleaf

Hmmm... I'm not sure, but when I read the LGPL, I got yet another twist
out of it: You can keep your source under wraps. If you distribute some-
thing (like an executable) that is linked to an LGPLed library, you must
also distribute your application in such a form that allows anyone to link
it to another library.

If this is true, I have several questions: 1) does this also apply if the
app is linked to the _shared_ version of an LGPLed library?

The reason I ask is because apps that are linked with a shared library
then must link with a specific version of the library. I would like to
try linking with another version (especially if I don't have the right
library version.)

-Jim

Erich S. Boleyn (erich@ee.pdx.edu) wrote:
: All standard disclaimers (including that I don't work for the FSF in
: any capacity) apply here.

: propf@zeus.towson.edu (Gregory Propf) writes:

: >I'm the guy that started this thread and I'm still confused.  I am now
: >told that libc.a is *not* a GNU library under Linux?!?!  What's all
: >this about the 'vendor' libraries.  Are you guys telling that the
: >libraries were not written by the GNUs?  If so who does write the
: >lib*.a stuff under Linux?  Does Torvalds himself hand code the stuff
: >in 32-bit assembler.  I would like to get a real answer to this before
: >I start working.  I'd hate to write something for the market and then
: >be forced to make it free because I used a few library functions.

: I'm not a major Linux user, but as I understand, Linux uses the GNU C
: library, perhaps a special branch of it.

: The talk about "vendor" libraries appears to be in reference to other
: (i.e. proprietary) UNIX-like systems, which usually have libraries
: that either come with them by default, or you can buy as part of a
: development kit.

: >This is one case where I think Microsquash has it all over the FSF.
: >When I learned to code in C I went out and bought Quick-C 2.something.
: >It cost me about $60 and considering that I only had a 286 it was
: >fine.  I wrote thousands of lines of code with that thing.  In the
: >docs they basically tell you that you are free to do wahtever you want
: >with the libraries.  You can link to them to your heart's content and
: >then you sell your code or your binaries or you can post it on the net
: >and give it away free.  They don't care what you do with them.

: I think you'll find this is incorrect.  If you look at the licenses
: included with the software, what you pay for is the privelege of using
: their software (this is a lot how their licenses read), you do not own
: it, so I understand from the licenses on their packaging.  You simply
: have a right to use it on one machine, and maintain enough copies to
: ensure you won't lose it easily.  Microsoft and other vendors are
: pushing the copyright thing even further...  there is lobbying from
: "intellectual property" groups going on right now to move this definition
: to count loading it into the machine at run-time as a "copy" of
: the software under legal terms, and yet more rumbling in the wings.

: My point simply being that they very much care about what you do with
: the software.  You are simply allowed to use it in an "appropriate"
: manner.

: This kind of thing is a point of contention between the
: BSD-like license folks and the GNU-like license folks, i.e. totally
: free to do what you want with the code vs. enforced freedom of access
: to and distribution of source code to all who use the binaries.

: A lot of people say that you must include the source code directly with
: the binaries if you use the GPL, but I believe it simply says it must
: be available for some nominal distribution fee, and you can't restrict
: arbitrary redistribution on the binaries or sources...  I'm going to look
: it up.

: >The assumption is that people buy compilers to write code and then they
: >will likely sell it.  They would not sell you a compiler that you
: >could only use if you paid them royalties.  And this is Microsquash
: >we're talking about here.  Not exactly the most humanitarian bunch of
: >people.  The FSF should put their libraries out under a similar
: >licence (or anti-licence if you like)

: I thought about this long and hard, since I for business reasons I needed
: to join their "Developer's Network", as they call it.  They make it pretty
: clear that even the use of their stuff is restricted to never looking
: too deeply into it to figure out how it works (even for personal interest,
: say), using it only in certain conditions (like you are told it is
: your responsibility that if the software is installed on a network,
: to ensure it is not used simultaneously by more people than you have
: licenses, to the point of requiring you to buy a license manager
: software package), etc.

: The FSF comes from a different point of view.  You can do whatever
: you want with the code except restrict someone else's similar rights
: once you give it to them.  Somewhere in the explanation about how the
: FSF got started with Richard Stallman it points out his intense dislike
: of not enabling other programmers to have access to source code to
: change as they need or like.

: >One of the posters said something really intelligent.  'The LGPL is
: >one of the big obstacles to business use of Linux'  or something like it.

: How is the LGPL and obstacle?

: The LGPL simply states that the source code for the libraries themselves
: that are under the license must be available (and likewise freely
: re-distributable), *not* the main body of the code.

: If you enhance the libraries themselves, then you must make the source
: code to those enhancements available as well.

: Thus, if you wrote a commercial program using the GNU C library (which
: is now under the LGPL), you can license the main body of the program
: as you please, but you must make available the libraries and any
: enhancements to the libraries you make.  Frankly, I don't see what
: all the fuss is about.

: >I agree.  Businesses will generate tons of code for an OS if they
: >think they can get some of their investment back by selling it.  If
: >you can't be sure that you can write a program with your compiler and
: >then market it your incentive to write code is stifled.  This is a
: >shame because Linux has it all over Win or WinNT in terms of general
: >robustness.  I mean I've got 7 apps up under X right now.  Windoze
: >crashes after #3 or so and then still can't run all at once... - GP

: First of all, neither the GPL nor the LGPL stop you from selling
: the code, they just ensure that redistribution of any binaries and
: source code covered by them is free.

: The main grumble seems to be "why can't we license the code so we can
: make money on it?".

: The main answer is "that's the whole point of the GPL in particular,
: and the LGPL is a weaker statement of the same thing.  If you use the
: code as a starting point for work, you must give the same rights you
: had to those you give it to.".

: I think there are other arguments than the "intellectual property"
: ones, myself.  I'm a programmer, and I've been burned so many times
: by proprietary code it isn't even funny.  What about protection for
: the users, by allowing them to fix problems that you can't or won't
: fix?  Such a set of problems is costing my company probably over
: $1 million for a new product line that might otherwise not be
: necessary.  That isn't even including the upgrade costs of the users
: in the field!

: In the end I think it is a tough issue, but if you really have problems
: with it, there exists the BSD-like copyrights that don't restrict
: people taking the code and licensing it as they please.  It's not
: fundamentally a problem with free software, mostly a difference of
: opinion in what "free" means.

: Comments, etc. are welcome.

: Erich Boleyn


: --
: Erich Stefan Boleyn                \___  E-mail (preferred):  <erich@uruk.org>
: Mad Genius wanna-be, CyberMuffin       \____    home #:  +1 (503) 226-0741
: <A HREF=http://www.uruk.org/">WWW Site</A>  |  USnail: 924 S.W. 16th Ave, #202
: Motto: "I'll live forever or die trying"     \        Portland, OR, USA  97205
--

-Jim

----

* Write to clipper.petition@cpsr.org and tell them you oppose Clipper.
* Write to cantwell@eff.org supporting HR 3627.
* Write leahy@eff.org and demand the Clinton administration explain IN
  THE SENATE why it thinks U.S. citizens shouldn't have any digital privacy.
* This is a shareware .signature  -- please pass it on!