Steven Hugg wrote:
>
> Yes, I too am unclear on this issue. I saw mentioned way back in the
> archives
> that both libgcj and classpath would move to the GPL with a special
> exception
> for when the library is linked to an executable. So it'll be GPL in
> source-code land,
> but LGPL in binary-land. Does that sound mostly correct?
>
> Sorry to harp on this issue, but the licensing affects my plans to use
> classpath &
> libgcj so I need to make sure I understand the nuances.
As I understand it (IANAL, and I'm also not one of the people drawing up
the license) the meaning of the new license is, to all intents and
purposes, exactly the same as the LGPL. The difference lies in the fact
that the LGPL requires you to make a dynamically-linked version
available with the ability to replace the LGPL'd component - this is
rather difficult if, say, you're writing code to be run in someone's
VCR! So this condition in the LGPL caused problems for people writing
embedded code.
The modified GPL keeps more-or-less the same behaviour as the LGPL (the
"exception" that was added basically removes the so-called "viral"
effect of the GPL) but does not have that condition, so it is possible
to use the code in embedded situations.
Hope this helps (and someone please jump in if I'm wrong!)
Stuart.
