Re: LICENSES [was: Re: Have you seen this?]

[Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>]

On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Alan Cox wrote:

> > If I use libc, I don't think I am creating a libc. Unless I
> > am, I'm not deriving, I think. If I use libc, I simply use the
> > services. Hence, libc is "a section of" the thing I am making, and
> > does not derive from it.
>
> Your program derives from libc by being linked with it. This is
> precisely why an LGPL has to exist.

true. more precisely: when you compile your program, the binary is a
combined work which is derived from both your source code and libc. that
derived work may only be distributed if ALL of it's parts (i.e. your
source AND the libc) may be distributed under the terms of the GPL.

note that there is also an exemption for libraries which normally come
with the operating system - and libc definitely qualifies there...but
that is a specific exemption which doesn't affect the general rule
above.

libc is a potentially confusing example, so s/libc/libFOO/ in my first
paragraph above.

craig

--
craig sanders