"Dean Michael Berris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Take for instance
> libraries that are released (either unintentionally or purposely)
> under the GPL -- all the binaries that link to these libraries will be
> considered derivative work therefore should also be under the GPL.
>
> In some instances, it _may_ be good, but in others it isn't especially
> if you're building a solution that should work with other non-GPLed
> systems.
Yes. That is why FSF wrote the LGPL. The LGPL is a version of the GPL
which can be used for libraries and which allows the software to be linked
with proprietary software.
One example of software that is distributed under the LGPL is the GNU
standard C library ("libc").
The GPL and LGPL are the only licences that FSF has written for software,
but FSF sometimes recommends using other licences. For example, for the Ogg
Vorbis project, Richard Stallman recommended using a licence similar to the
licence of FreeBSD for some parts.
The LGPL was originally called the "Library GPL", but it should only be used
for some libraries, not all, so it has been renamed as the "Lesser GPL"
(because it is less active in ensuring users freedom).
More info: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
--
Ciarán O'Riordan __________________ \ http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _________ \ GPLv3 and other work supported by
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \ Fellowship: http://www.fsfe.org
_________________________________________________
Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List
[email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph)
Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists
Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
