RE: [HACKERS] ODBC & LGPL license...

On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Andrew Martin wrote:

> > On 12-Jan-98 The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > >       Does anyone here *understand* the LGPL?  If we put the ODBC
> > >drivers *under* src/interfaces, does that risk contaminating the rest of
> > >the code *in any way*?  Anyone here done a reasonably thorough study of
> > >the LGPL and can comment on it?
> >
> > My understanding from Stallman's statements on the matter are:  Distribution of
> > GPL'd source with non-GPL'd source is fine, as long as it is simple to figure
> > out which is which.  By definition, GPL'd sources can be distributed freely.
> > For binaries which fall under the GPL, again, mixing them with other stuff is
> > OK, as long as GPL'd stuff is identified as such.  Sources must be available,
> > of course.
> >
> > LGPL is completely different.  LGPL is what you use when you link your
> > non-GPL'd sources against a library built with GPL'd sources.  In that case,
> > you are legal IFF you stuff can be re-linked against a different, non-GPL'd
> > library without recompilation.  Actually, there's a bit of confusion on my
> > part about how much recompilation is permitted.
> >
> > Companies like DG/Sequent/Sun/etc wouldn't be able to include FSF software on
> > the distributions if the above were not the case.
> >
> > ObCaveat:  I'm not a lawyer.  I don't look like a lawyer, I don't smell like a
> > lawyer, and I don't lie like a lawyer.
> >
> >
> My understanding is pretty much the same. Originally there was only GPL. This
> really says that anything you link with GPL code must be distributed under
> GPL - effectively your source becomes part of the original GPL'd product.
>
> Clearly this is ridiculous when you are linking against, say, the GNU
> C-library, so Stallman introduced LGPL which effectively says that any
> modifications or additions you make to the library fall under the LGPL,
> but anything which calls the LGPL'd library can have whatever copyright
> you want. Thus it is possible to produce commercial products which use
> the GNU C-library, etc., etc.

    Okay, then going back to the original...the PostODBC drivers that
I'd like to include as part of the src/interfaces directory falls under
LGPL...if we did include it, then we wouldn't/shouldn't be contaminating
the source tree in any way?