Stuart Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was under the impression that the primary difference between the
> GPL and the LGPL was that the GPL required software linked with it
> to be under the GPL, but the LGPL did not (the oft-mentioned "viral"
> property of the GPL).
That's correct. However, the LGPL does place guidelines on how the
end product must be distributed based on if it uses static or dynamic
linking.
> Does the proposed exception to the GPL really have the effect of
> completely wiping out this "viral" effect?
Somewhat; modifications and additions to the library itself must still
be free. You can think of it as an LGPL but without the distribution
requirements when static linking is performed.
