At 3:26 am +0100 9/6/99, Robert Brady wrote: >On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Andrew Collier wrote: > >> Actually, since the LGPL >> was changed a few months ago, the infection principle is almost as strong >> as in GPL (ie. loony RMS has broken the LGPL beyond repair). > >Um, no. All LGPL2.1 does is to fix some typos, explicitly allow >dynamically linking, and to rename from "Library" to "Lesser".
What about paragraph 6 then, which now says: 6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications. So you can't have a non-free executable which is statically linked to a LGPL library. But a lot of people do that sort of thing, eg statically link your binary to glibc. I mean, there's enough flux in libc (especially on Linux) that statically linking makes the binary far more portable. And on *BSD the commonest distribution format is a statically linked a.out BSDI binary... >And RMS is not a loony. He may have different axioms than you, but his >arguments from those axioms are a good sight more well-reasoned than name >calling. See <URL:http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/> for more details. I've seen it, it's hilarious. Andrew -- | Andrew Collier | email [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Talk sense to a | Part 2 NatSci | http://carou.sel.cam.ac.uk/ | fool and he +----------------+----------------ICQ:38645805-+ calls you foolish | Selwyn College Student Computer Support Team | -- Euripides
