[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Something about Less General Public License
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Something about Less General Public License |
Date: |
Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:06:10 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
"Claude Yih" <wing0630@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi, everyone. I don't know if it is right to discuss things about
> LGPL in this group. However, it seems that there is no particularly
> LGPL-oriented group, so I have to post this message here.
This group is about GNU, not the GPL, so the LGPL is equally on-topic.
> Our group is developing a library which contains some source code
> belongs to a library that is distributed under the terms of Less
> General Public License 2.1. Of course, we know that we should
> distribute our library under LGPL too. However, in our library, it
> is dynamically linked with a shared library not covered by LGPL
> (this part is not the one belongts to the library covered by
> LGPL). But for some reason, it is impossible for us to distribute
> that shared library under LGPL as well. Our question is that if we
> distributed our library (binary and source code) under the terms of
> Less General Public License without providing the shared library
> together, would our activity be a violation of Less General Public
> License?
2d) If a facility in the modified Library refers to a function or a
table of data to be supplied by an application program that uses the
facility, other than as an argument passed when the facility is
invoked, then you must make a good faith effort to ensure that, in the
event an application does not supply such function or table, the
facility still operates, and performs whatever part of its purpose
remains meaningful.
(For example, a function in a library to compute square roots has a
purpose that is entirely well-defined independent of the
application. Therefore, Subsection 2d requires that any
application-supplied function or table used by this function must be
optional: if the application does not supply it, the square root
function must still compute square roots.)
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Library,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Library, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote
it.
> Please help us with the question above. Your kindness will be
> appreciated. Thanks:)
I recommend that you contact the author of the LGPLed library and/or
the FSF copyright clerk to get further clarification.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- Something about Less General Public License, Claude Yih, 2006/06/22
- Re: Something about Less General Public License,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Something about Less General Public License, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/06/22
- Re: Something about Less General Public License, Byron A Jeff, 2006/06/24
- Re: Something about Less General Public License, Claude Yih, 2006/06/25
- Re: Something about Less General Public License, Byron A Jeff, 2006/06/26
- Re: Something about Less General Public License, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/06/26
- Re: Something about Less General Public License, Byron A Jeff, 2006/06/26
- Re: Something about Less General Public License, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/06/26
- Re: Something about Less General Public License, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/06/26
- Message not available
- Re: Something about Less General Public License, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/06/26
- Re: Something about Less General Public License, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/06/26