Re: need comments on a copyright clause.
From: Fabrizio Polacco <fpolacco@icenet.fi>
> This thread make me think that it is DFSG compliant to have a library
> under GPL instead of LGPL.
A GPL-ed library is free within the definitions of the DFSG. We try not
to have them because they are unfriendly to commercial software, but
the DFSG allows them. The issue of derivation is a more complicated one
than aggregation. With derived works, you are distributing a program
that might have two licenses apply to it. With aggregation, two
unrelated programs on the same medium should not have license terms
that effect each other.
> I have looked at glibc-2.1 snapshots and they include this library with
> this GPL-like license.
LIBC6 is LGPL-ed. The GPL is included in the source because the LGPL
refers to it. If you look at the actual source files, they have a LGPL
license statement. A few run-time modules have an X-like license because
they are static-linked into your program.
Bruce
--
Can you get your operating system fixed when you need it?
Linux - the supportable operating system. http://www.debian.org/support.html
Bruce Perens K6BP bruce@debian.org NEW PHONE NUMBER: 510-620-3502
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: