Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Licences

[David Brownell]

> From: "Mark Wielaard" <address@hidden>
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 3:40 PM
>
> [ LGPL clause 6b ]
> 
> 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.

"GPL + library exception" has the same virtue.


>     This essentially means that you must implement a shared library
> loader.

Or use an OS which includes one (Linux, etc) ...


>     When you make embedded devices you might not have the space or
> processing power to support such a mechanism. 

And the problem with LGPL is the "rather than copying library
functions into the executable" clause, precluding static linkage.

The intent of the "exception" clause is to permit static linkage
in such situations:  code used "as a library".


>    By using the GPL+Exception
> this extra restriction/freedom is removed.

I'm not quite sure how to parse that first sentence; are you
talking about removing the "can't link statically" restriction,
or about removing the freedom to fix bugs?  The former is
true, but AFAIK not the latter.


>     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.

That seems wrong to me.

It's clear to me the intent of the "exception" is to permit
static linking of GPL'd code "as a library" with proprietary
code.  And that the FSF (or at least the GCC folk and many
others) accept that interpretation of the language.

Now there's likely a separate issue about how well the
"as a library" clause is defined.  LGPL says making
interfaces incompatible is verboten; what's "incompatible"?
Presumably failing a regression test, but that's not explicit.
Which tests, which version?  Do they test for adding new
functionality?  And so on.  "GPL+Exception" isn't even
that explicit, which could someday be troublesome in
contexts without applicable test suites.

However, if the intent is just to be "what LGPL should
have been", at least the static linking issue is gone.
Anyway, isn't linking just a way to "aggregate"?  :)

- Dave