>> Yes, you're right. I thought the Library GPL was essentially an "older >> version" of the Lesser GPL which is why I was just saying LGPL. I could be >> wrong, but I always understood they were equivalent for the purposes I care >> about anyways (I think the Library one is actually less restrictive than the >> Lesser one) >> >> The clause of the Library GPL that is the important one in terms of >> linking with proprietary stuff is 5: >> "A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but >> is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is >> called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a >> derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of >> this License." > > Ah yes... I tripped over that remark as well... Any idea as to what the > specific sentence means? That it is outside the scope of the license? Does > that mean something even more liberal, as in "do as you please"? >
It basically means that if your software just uses the library as a library then it is NOT a derivative work, i.e. a work derived from the original, and as such will not need to abide by the license conditions concerning derivitive works. A derivitive work uses, or has at some point used and since evolved, actual source code from the library itself. Regards, Wayne Koorts http://www.wkoorts.com
