Thread

1. ODBC & LGPL license...

   Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 1998-01-12T18:12:59Z

   
   Hi...
   
   	Well, since this has all sort of died off, and since I'd like to
   get some resolution on it.
   
   	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?
   
   
   
   
   

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

   Brian E Gallew <geek+@cmu.edu> — 1998-01-12T19:57:57Z

   -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
   
   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.
   
   
   =====================================================================
   | "If you're all through trying to burn the field down, will you    |
   | kindly get up and tell me why you're sitting in a fruit field,    |
   | stark naked, frying peaches?"                                     |
   =====================================================================
   | Finger geek@andrew.cmu.edu for my public key.                     |
   =====================================================================
   -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
   Version: 2.6.2
   
   iQBVAwUBNLp4SYdzVnzma+gdAQHRmAIArMU8KwW6eoplN/hiQ79Sev4TdeAEVcBp
   ejh/Px3zYZH6xJh75uXRLnelyXZeij5+UUNs4wwE3GIUQ9d02rBbQw==
   =uGid
   -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
   
   

3. Re: [HACKERS] ODBC & LGPL license...

   Kent S. Gordon <kgor@inetspace.com> — 1998-01-14T00:02:31Z

   >>>>> "scrappy" == The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
   
       > Hi...
   
       > 	Well, since this has all sort of died off, and since I'd like
       > to get some resolution on it.
   
       > 	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?
   
   Why not put the LGPL libraries in a separate area from the rest of the
   code (src/lgpl?).  This would make the libraries covered by the
   aggregation clause (part of section 2 says -- In addition, mere
   aggregation of another work not based on the Library with the Library
   (or with a work based on the Library) on a volume of a storage or
   distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of
   this License.).  I think this clearly states that it would not risk
   contaminating any of the other code.
   
   I would consider sending mail to GNU (gnu@gnu.org) to get any
   additional clarification needed.
   
   
   
   Kent S. Gordon
   Architect
   iNetSpace Co.
   voice: (972)851-3494 fax:(972)702-0384 e-mail:kgor@inetspace.com