Re: GPL v LGPL for libraries
On Tue, Dec 15, 1998 at 06:00:48PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 1998 aqy6633@acf5.nyu.edu wrote:
>
> >
> > > > or the same way I use the code of others when I do
> > > > system("/usr/bin/a2ps -X .....");
> > >
> > > Seriously? Are all your personal internal algorithms covered under the
> > > GPL? Even then I'm not sure there would be a license problem, as you are
> > > the individual spoken to by the license, not code whose interaction is
> > > regulated by the license.
> >
> > Dale, I am sure there is a point here somewhere. I just don't see it.
>
> The license gives you permission to execute the code. Whether you use the
> system comand to do so, or some other feater of the system is not
> relevant.
>
> > What is that you are against? Do you see the crucial difference beween
> > calling library function or calling executable via "system"?
>
> I am against the idea that lining is not "using".
I don't thinlk that is the case being made at all.
> > I am sorry, but whether the process has the same PID or different is
> > implementation dependent. I can easily imagine "system()" that doesn't use
> > fork(). I can also write a program that will not be linked with a library on a
> > compilation stage, but open a library file ar run time with dlopen() and
> > resolve all the symbols on startup.
>
> Please don't hide behind words like resolve as a euphamism for "include".
> When you "resolve" a symbol, you do so by copying a piece of code from the
> library into the executable image and pointing the "reference" tags for
> that symbol to the included routine. The fact that this happens at run
> time, instead of at compile time, doesn't change the fact that these
> routines are being "used" by your code. Such inclusion requires the
> copyright to be GPL if the library is GPL. The LGPL doesn't have these
> problems for free software or proprietary software. Just because it allows
> for proprietary linking doesn't mean that it is less free.
That is not the case being made...I think there is a mis-communication going
on. The case was NOT that LGPL allowing proprietary code makes it
less free...
It is the case that using the GPL for a library makes it less free. In fact
the case is being made that if a library is GPLd it puts a restriction
on how the library can be USED (and linking against it/executing code from it
IS using it). This make it less free or possibly even non-free
> For me it is
> more free, as it lets more software execute not less. I also feel that
> such software, by competing in a free environment, will be encouraged to
> become more free as well. I give, as an example, Netscape. If libc6 were
> not under the LGPL, then Netscape could never have run on a Linux machine,
> and would never have gotten the opportunity to become more free.
Agreed.
-Steve
--
/* -- Stephen Carpenter <sjc@delphi.com> --- <sjc@debian.org>------------ */
Q: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Only one, but it takes a long time, and the light bulb has
to really want to change.
Reply to: