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

> 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.


Andrew

(Same caveat as above :-)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Andrew C.R. Martin                             University College London
EMAIL: (Work) martin@biochem.ucl.ac.uk    (Home) andrew@stagleys.demon.co.uk
URL:   http://www.biochem.ucl.ac.uk/~martin
Tel:   (Work) +44(0)171 419 3890                    (Home) +44(0)1372 275775

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?