I'm unsure at this time about your comments regarding OSD#6 and 8, but one thing seems clear to me: one can distribute an application that's statically link with the library. Such an application would be a 'work that uses the library', and the only limitation with a binary linked with library is that you must tell whoever you give it to that it contains such a library and give access to the code of the library (or point to the web site, I guess). AFAIK, the LGPL also has this clause.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Mark Rafn wrote: > Am I the only one who thinks 2a and 2d are unacceptible? It violates > OSD#3 by limiting the type of derived work, perhaps OSD#6 by limiting > itself to creators of software libraries, and perhaps OSD#8 by being > specific to the product "software library". As far as I can tell, it > prevents anyone from distributing an application that statically links the > library into it (if such an application is a derived work of the library, > at least). > > It doesn't even seem close to me. Let me know if I'm insane, or reading > it wrong, but I can't see how such a restriction can be considered open > source. > > I know they're straight from the LGPL, but they are irrelevant there > because the LGPL is a pure superset of the GPL (see LGPL section 3), > unlike the license under discussion. > > Yes, this indicates that I think the LGPL without section 3 would > be non-open-source. > -- > Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/> > -- Christophe Dupre System Administrator, Scientific Computation Research Center Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, NY USA Phone: (518) 276-2578 - Fax: (518) 276-4886 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
