Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Licences

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 12:30:59AM -0400, Andrew Selkirk wrote:
> 
> So LGPL and GPL+ex accomplish the same goals?  If this is the
> case, then I would feel much better about relicensing my pieces.
> My only requirement is that I can use the libraries in both my open
> source and commercial settings.
> 
> How are these two licenses not the same?

The LGPL has the following clause (6b)

    b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the
    Library.  A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a
    copy of the library already present on the user's computer system,
    rather than copying library functions into the executable, and (2)
    will operate properly with a modified version of the library, if
    the user installs one, as long as the modified version is
    interface-compatible with the version that the work was made with.

Which means that the user can at least change the free part of the program
(the LGPL code in the library). Which is very nice if you find a bug in
that part. This essentially means that you must implement a shared library
loader. When you make embedded devices you might not have the space or
processing power to support such a mechanism. By using the GPL+Exception
this extra restriction/freedom is removed. When choosing between the LGPL
and GPL+Exception you basicly have to ask if you think the end user should
be able to always change your part of the program or not.

Cheers,

Mark
-- 
Stuff to read:
    <http://www.toad.com/gnu/whatswrong.html>
  What's Wrong with Copy Protection, by John Gilmore