Re: Library General Public Licence
От | markw@mohawksoft.com |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Library General Public Licence |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 18473.24.91.171.78.1148859747.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Library General Public Licence (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Library General Public Licence
|
Список | pgsql-odbc |
> Bart Samwel <bart@samwel.tk> writes: >> Fortunately ODBC drivers are decoupled from the actual programs that use >> them by a standard interface. If I am correct then this implies that (2) >> is always met for psqlODBC. > > Yeah. I think actually (2) is met for any ordinary shared library; > it's only if you want to static-link an LGPL library that it becomes > an issue. The LGPL was drafted before dynamic linking became the norm, > and so it doesn't really mention the point. If I understand the supporting documents to the GPL, I think you are mistaken. The GPL defines a derived work as within the same process space, so, RMS by defining "derived work" within the context of GPL has also extended what the GPL is intended to cover. Static or dynamic linking doesn't make a difference, the code is intimately linked when the program is run. The only way to avoid touching GPL is a call gate or TCP/IP type mechanism. That's why all libraries should be LGPL.
В списке pgsql-odbc по дате отправления: