Re: A Detailed Analysis of the GPL For KDE/QT
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
> Finally, if a library wasn't a part of the program as a whole, what's
> the point of the LGPL?
You seem to mix things up again.
Programs linked to GPL'd library must be GPL, because by using the GPL'd
library you have to comply to the license terms of this library. The main
point is that USING a GPL'd library for a program is only allowed if the
resulting program becomes GPL'd. The library never becomes part of the
program which is very obvious if you consider the fact the the GPL does
not mention linking at all.
Programs linked to LGPL'd library _can_ be non GPL. LGPL does protect the
code of the library very similiar to the GPL but allows link (static and
dynamic) to non GPL and non LGPL'd code.
Programs linked to non GPL'd library can be GPL.
The main point is that a library can force some restrictions on a program
which uses the library (Like the Qt Free Software License forces to
release the written program under a free license) but NOT vice versa.
So to answer your question: LGPL was created in order to NOT force the
GPL on programs which use it. (The license does cover the use of the
library and modifications/redistributions of the library itself.) It was
not created because it is part of the reulting binary.
// Martin Konold, Herrenbergerstr. 14, 72070 Tuebingen, Germany //
// Email: email@example.com //
Anybody who's comfortable using KDE should use it. Anyone who wants to
tell other people what they should be using can go to work for Microsoft.
John.Giasi@ummed.edu: "BCPL gave birth to B, and the child of B was of
course C, since the ancestor of X is W, so the
sucessor to X must be K."