On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 10:17:01AM -0400, Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence) wrote: > On 2010-10-23 7:27, Carlo Wood wrote: > > I am not a lawyer :p, but I think that it is allowed to link an LGPL-ed > > library statically against a proprietary executable provided you > > provide the object code or source code of the work that uses the library. > > Not correct. LGPL code may be linked to other source without having the > viral effect of requiring that other source also be published as open > source. LGPL _does_ require that if any changes are made to the source > under that license, then those changes (and the original sources) must > be open and available either as LGPL or as GPL.
You state pretty firmly, while I believe you are in error. You are NOT allowed to link statically with an LGPL-ed library unless you provide the means for the user to relink the library, for example by providing the .o (object) files that it is linked with. >From many available links, let me quote an answer from http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/439136.html: <quote> Q2a: What is the implication of static linking? A2a: You need to comply with the license requirements. Eban Moglen in http://www.spinics.net/lists/xf/msg02311.html indicates that you are producing a "derivative work" of the code in the library. In the United States the US Copyright Office states at http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html A "derivative work," that is, a work that is based on (or derived from) one or more already existing works ... [copyright statements]. Both of those statements are pretty clear so section 6 of the LGPL applies. Note that you can distribute (6a) ... [your work] as object code and/or source code, so that the user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified executable containing the modified Library You can thus distribute object files (and protect your source code) and still comply with the requirements of the LGPL. However, others (in particular, Richard Stallman) does not necessarily interpret the LGPL in this way. I strongly recommend you contact the copyright holder prior to building a statically linked application for distribution as a commercial product. </quote> In this case, you'd have to contact Troll Tech and ask them if even this is allowed, but at the very least you can NOT distribute libmedia_plugin_webkit.{sp,dll,dylib}, which is statically linked with Qt, without at least providing the object files that it exists of (in addition to Qt), that you are the copyright holder of. I think this is extremely logical: The user must at all times be able to get the source code of the LGPL-ed library, change it, and *RELINK* it with the application he or she is using. The BSD guys have a different view though (just to make clear that you completely orthogonal view really ought to be backed up by one of your lawyers). Quoting http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/bsdl-gpl/article.html#ORIGINS-LGPL (where 'glibc' is used as an example of an LGPL-ed library): <quote> If you statically link an application with glibc, such as is often required in embedded systems, you cannot keep your application proprietary, that is, the source must be released. Both the GPL and LGPL require any modifications to the code directly under the license to be released. </quote> -- Carlo Wood <ca...@alinoe.com> _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
